Supreme Court's Landmark Rulings: New DNA Protocols, Quashed Appointments, and Anti-Corruption Stance - 2025-07-16

Supreme Court's Landmark Rulings: New DNA Protocols, Quashed Appointments, and Anti-Corruption Stance

New Delhi – In a series of consequential judgments delivered in mid-July, the Supreme Court of India has significantly influenced the landscape of criminal procedure, service law, and administrative governance. The apex court issued binding nationwide guidelines for handling DNA evidence while acquitting a death row inmate, quashed over 1,100 "arbitrary" academic appointments in Punjab, clarified gratuity rules for aided-school teachers, and took a firm stance against corruption in a case of illegal construction. These rulings underscore the Court's commitment to procedural integrity, constitutional propriety, and the rule of law.

---

Nationwide Mandate on DNA Evidence Following Acquittal in Death Penalty Case

In a judgment with far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath , Sanjay Karol , and Sandeep Mehta acquitted Kattavellai @ Devakar, a man sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a couple in Tamil Nadu. The acquittal was based on what the Court termed a "faulty investigation," highlighting severe procedural lapses in the collection and handling of crucial DNA evidence.

The conviction in KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR VERSUS STATE OF TAMILNADU had rested almost entirely on the purported match between biological samples from the crime scene and the accused. However, the appellant, with legal assistance from The Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR University of Law, successfully demonstrated systematic flaws that rendered the evidence unreliable. The Court noted the absence of a proper chain of custody register, unexplained delays in forwarding samples to the forensic lab, and a lack of documentation on storage protocols, all of which raised significant doubts about potential contamination or tampering.

"A common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated by way of this judgment, is that of faulty investigation," the Court observed in the judgment authored by Justice Karol .

Recognizing the critical and sensitive nature of DNA evidence, the Court went beyond the individual case to establish a binding, nationwide protocol to ensure its integrity in future investigations. The directives mandate:

1. Standardized Collection and Documentation: DNA samples must be collected with care, properly packaged, and documented with details including FIR number, investigating officer's details, and signatures of medical professionals and witnesses.
2. Swift Transportation: Investigating Officers are now responsible for ensuring samples reach the forensic lab within 48 hours of collection, with any delay to be justified in the case diary.
3. Restricted Access: No evidence package can be opened or resealed without express authorization from the Trial Court, based on expert opinion.
4. Mandatory Chain of Custody Register: A comprehensive Chain of Custody Register must be maintained to track every movement of the evidence from collection to the final verdict. This register will be a mandatory part of the trial court record.

The Court directed its Registry to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and Directors General of Police to ensure compliance and urged police academies to update their training modules accordingly. This landmark intervention aims to fortify the bedrock of forensic evidence in criminal trials, protecting against miscarriages of justice stemming from investigative negligence.

UGC Regulations Reign Supreme: Court Quashes Over 1,100 "Politically Motivated" Appointments

In a significant ruling on the federal structure of educational governance, the Supreme Court set aside the appointments of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians made by the Punjab Government in October 2021. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, in the case of Mandeep Singh and others v State of Punjab and others , found "total arbitrariness" in the selection process, which it concluded was conducted for "narrow political gains" ahead of the 2022 state assembly elections.

The Court's decision reversed a Punjab and Haryana High Court division bench ruling and upheld the single-judge bench's initial order quashing the entire selection. The judgment, authored by Justice Dhulia , meticulously detailed the glaring violations, including the bypassing of the State Public Service Commission and the flouting of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers...) Regulations, 2010, which the State of Punjab had explicitly adopted in 2013.

The State had replaced the rigorous, multi-faceted selection criteria prescribed by the UGC with a simple multiple-choice question (MCQ) test, a method the Court described as "unheard of" for appointing assistant professors.

Reaffirming the principle laid down in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) , the Court reiterated that UGC regulations are mandatory for any state that has adopted them or receives financial aid from the commission. Justice Dhulia explained the constitutional hierarchy:

"UGC Regulations are made under UGC Act which was enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I of the Schedule VII, whereas State Governments exercise powers under Entry 25 of the List III... Entry 25 of the List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I. Hence, laws... made under Entry 66 of the Union List would prevail over any law made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List."

The Court rejected the government's departure from established norms as a "clearly arbitrary" move that failed the test of reasonableness under Article 14. This judgment serves as a powerful reminder to state governments of their obligation to adhere to national standards in higher education and acts as a bulwark against the politicization of academic appointments.

No Relief for Builder in Corruption Case; Demolition Ordered

Reinforcing a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption and illegal construction, the Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court decision and refused to quash a criminal case against a builder, G. Mohandas . The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found that Mohandas had entered into a criminal conspiracy with municipal officials to construct a four-storey commercial complex in a prohibited zone.

In G. MOHANDAS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. , the appellant had obtained a permit for "internal renovation"—a category not requiring extensive approval—and proceeded to demolish the existing structure and erect a new commercial building. He ignored a stop-memo issued by vigilance authorities in November 2006.

The judgment, authored by Justice Mehta , dismantled the appellant's defense that the original building had collapsed due to rain, noting the stop-memo predated the alleged collapse, proving intent. The Court found clear evidence of collusion, stating, “it is evident that the appellant and the officials of the Municipal Corporation were acting hands in glove right from the time of granting permission.” The officials had "deliberately turned a blind eye" and even entertained a fraudulent application for regularization to "give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design."

Finding the ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, clearly established, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also issued a stern directive:

"We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances."

This order effectively mandates the demolition of the unauthorized structure, sending a strong message that collusive arrangements to subvert zoning and building laws will face severe consequences.

Aided-School Teachers' Gratuity Governed by State Rules, Not Central Act

In a nuanced interpretation of service law, the Supreme Court has clarified the legal framework for the payment of gratuity to teachers in government-aided schools. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, in VIKRAM BHALCHANDRA GHONGADE VERSUS THE HEADMISTRESS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL... , held that such teachers are "akin to a post under the State Government" for the purpose of monetary benefits.

Consequently, their gratuity claims fall under the relevant state service rules—in this case, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982—and not the central Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The 1972 Act explicitly excludes persons holding a post under the Government from its definition of "employee" under Section 2(e).

The case involved an appellant whose deceased mother was a teacher in a government-aided school in Maharashtra. His claim for gratuity under the 1972 Act was rejected up to the High Court.

The Supreme Court, while noting that aided-school teachers are not strictly government employees, observed that their service conditions, including sanctioned posts and payment of salaries and allowances, are governed by government rules. "Though strictly speaking the teachers may not be holding a post under the State Government, it is akin to a post under the State Government, at least for the monetary benefits," the Court reasoned.

While denying the claim under the central Act, the Court provided relief by permitting the appellant to apply for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) under the 1982 State Rules. This judgment provides crucial clarity for thousands of teachers in aided schools across the country, harmonizing their post-retirement benefits with those of state government employees where service conditions are similar.