2 December 2025 Legal Updates

BAIL CANNOT BE GRANTED SOLELY ON PARITY WITHOUT ASSESSING ACCUSED'S SPECIFIC ROLE: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sagar v. State of UP & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• November 28, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Facts of the Case

A murder case arose from a dispute between villagers, where the complainant's father Sonveer was shot dead by accused Aditya at the instigation of other accused persons including Rajveer and Suresh Pal, who were armed with pistols and had blocked their path. Multiple accused persons were involved, and some were granted bail by the Allahabad High Court.

Key Legal Issue

Can parity with co-accused be the sole ground for granting bail?

Court's Ruling

• Parity Cannot Be Sole Ground for Bail: The Court held that parity with co-accused cannot be the sole reason for granting bail; courts must consider multiple relevant factors including the gravity of the offense, role of the accused, and other circumstances.
• Meaning of Parity: Parity in bail matters refers to 'position' in the crime - meaning the role played by the accused, not merely involvement in the same offense. Different roles (instigator vs. mob member vs. actual shooter) cannot be treated as being on par.
• Requirement of Reasoned Orders: While elaborate reasons may not be necessary for granting bail, orders must contain at least brief reasoning; completely non-speaking orders violate principles of natural justice.
• Relevant Bail Considerations: Courts must examine: nature of allegations, severity of punishment, witness tampering risk, evidence tampering concerns, prosecution's case strength, criminal antecedents, and prima facie satisfaction regarding charges.

Decision

• Appeal 1 (Rajveer): Bail granted by High Court was set aside. Accused directed to surrender within two weeks.
• Appeal 2 (Prince): High Court's bail order was set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration with proper reasoning.

SELECTION CRITERIA CANNOT BE CHANGED AFTER INTERVIEW: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• J&K Service Selection Board & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• November 26, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Facts of the Case

The J&K Services Selection Board issued a recruitment notification for 38 posts of Foresters in Jammu Division with minimum qualification of 10+2 with Science. The evaluation criteria initially awarded 25 points for B.Sc. Forestry degree out of 100 total points. After interviews were completed, the Board changed the evaluation by differentiating between 3-year B.Sc. Forestry (20 points) and 4-year B.Sc. Forestry (25 points). Candidates with 3-year degrees challenged this mid-process change.

Procedural History

• Single Judge (High Court): Dismissed the writ petitions
• Division Bench (High Court): Allowed the appeals, holding the change arbitrary
• Supreme Court: Dismissed the Board's appeal, upholding the Division Bench

Key Legal Issue

Can evaluation criteria be altered after the selection process (including interviews) is complete and only preparation of the select list remains?

Court's Ruling

1. Principles Established:

• No Post-Interview Changes to Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation procedures cannot be changed after candidates have completed all stages of participation in the selection process, particularly after interviews are conducted.
• Transparency and Rationality in Recruitment: Recruiting bodies must adopt procedures that are transparent, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary and having rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
• Change Based on Representations is Arbitrary: Altering evaluation criteria based on representations from candidates after the selection process has concluded lacks transparency and rational nexus.
• Context Matters: Since the minimum qualification was only 10+2 with Science and emphasis was on physical attributes and viva voce, differentiation between 3-year and 4-year forestry degrees was not justified.

2. Precedents Relied Upon:

• K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512 - Held that prescribing minimum cut-off marks after interviews is impermissible
• Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025) 2 SCC 1 - Constitution Bench affirmed the Manjusree principle

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that:

• The change in evaluation criteria was arbitrary
• Candidates with 3-year B.Sc. Forestry degrees should be adjusted against vacant posts or additional posts should be created
• Selected candidates who had already served should not be ousted

Key Takeaway

Once a selection process begins with declared criteria, changing the rules mid-game (especially after candidates complete their participation) violates principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice.