Writ Law - Disqualification of Elected Representative - Odisha Gram Panchayat Act 1964 - Sections 25(1)(n) and 26(3) - Petitioner assailed the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate Sambalpur disqualifying him as Naib Sarpanch - Disqualification was triggered by a complaint from the Sarpanch alleging the Petitioner's illegal participation in tenders for construction of a GPLF Building and Mukhyamantri Sabha Ghar - Enquiry reports by the Block Development Officer confirmed the Petitioner held a C Class Contractor registration valid during his tenure - Petitioner primarily challenged the order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice alleging non-receipt of the complaint copy and enquiry reports - State filed an affidavit demonstrating that notices were issued to the Petitioner on multiple dates including 01.11.2025 17.12.2025 and 15.01.2026 which were duly acknowledged but not acted upon - Petitioner chose to remain absent on consecutive hearing dates - Held - The Collector independently applied his mind to the materials on record including the reports of the SDPO and DPO - There is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence - The Petitioner having been afforded repeated opportunities which he chose not to avail is estopped from raising grievances regarding natural justice - Petition dismissed as an abuse of the process of law - [Paras 1-16].

Writ Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Conduct of Petitioner - Petitioner claimed the disqualification order was non est due to procedural irregularities - Court found that the Petitioner was served with notices for hearing on 12.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 but failed to participate or place any material on record to justify his absence - Held - Principles of natural justice cannot be invoked by a party who deliberately chooses to stay away from a lawful proceeding despite notice - Such a conduct precludes the party from later challenging the decision on the ground of denial of opportunity - [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – All interlocutory applications including I.A. No. 12494 of 2026 for stay of election stand dismissed – No costs.

Criminal Law - Bigamy with concealment - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 495 - Appellant married respondent in 1984 under Hindu rites unaware of his prior marriage to one Manabi Roy in 1983 under the Special Marriage Act - Respondent was later dismissed from police service following departmental proceedings for bigamy - Trial Court acquitted respondent citing failure to prove first marriage via registry officials and failure to examine the second priest for the second marriage - High Court found the findings preposterous and de hors the evidence - High Court noted that the marriage certificate was exhibited and no suggestion was made by the defence challenging the first marriage during cross-examination - Held - ingredients of Section 495 IPC involving second marriage during subsistence of first and active concealment were proven beyond reasonable doubt - acquittal reversed and respondent convicted - [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Law - Proof of Public Documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 63 and 65 - Marriage Certificate - Trial Court refused to accept the marriage certificate between respondent and first wife because officials from the registry were not examined - High Court held that production of a copy of the Certificate of Marriage under the Special Marriage Act is sufficient proof of a previous marriage especially when the fact was corroborated by the respondent's dismissal from service for bigamy and lack of challenge in cross-examination - Held - Trial Court laid unnecessary and excessive emphasis on the requirement of oral proof for an exhibited document - [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Procedure - Limitation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 468 - Delay in filing complaint - Complaint filed in 1990 for marriage contracted in 1984 and discovered in 1985-86 - Trial Court held the delay to be fatal - High Court clarified that an offence under Section 495 IPC provides for imprisonment up to ten years and therefore attracts no period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC - Held - delay in filing a complaint does not extinguish or dilute the offence - [Para 20].

Family Law - Hindu Marriage - Presumption of validity - Proof of rites - Trial Court held the second marriage unproved as the priest who conducted ceremonies on the second day was not summoned - High Court held that once witnesses depose to the performance of Hindu rites and the wife is accepted into the matrimonial home as a lawful daughter-in-law a presumption of a valid marriage follows - Held - insisting on the production of every priest involved stretches the degree of proof beyond rational and legal limits - [Paras 21-23].

Evidence Law - Scope of Deposition - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 200 - Omissions in complaint - Trial Court found depositions of witnesses to be wider than the initial complaint - High Court held the object of examination is to enable witnesses to depose as freely and widely as possible - Held - there is always scope for bringing in new facts during oral examination which cannot be suspected merely for being absent in the formal complaint - [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 495 IPC – Sentenced to three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the appellant as compensation – In default of fine further simple imprisonment of one year – Respondent directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Abduction - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 361, 363 and 366 - Acquittal - State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused of kidnapping a minor girl with intent to compel marriage - Prosecution alleged that the accused threatened to upload victim's photographs on the internet to coerce her into joining him - Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding that the victim voluntarily accompanied him - High Court re-appreciated evidence noting that the victim (PW3) in her cross-examination admitted the accused never slapped her and that she never gave him any photographs - Evidence revealed the victim travelled with the accused in public buses and visited crowded terminals at Anand Vihar and Haridwar without seeking help from police or public officials present - High Court observed such conduct is inconsistent with a person being taken under coercion or threat - Essential ingredients of taking or enticing under Section 363 IPC not established as there was no clear evidence of inducement or active participation by the accused in forming the victim's intention to leave her home - Held - No interference called for with the trial court's order of acquittal - appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-19, 21-22].

Criminal Law - Sexual Harassment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 - Section 12 - Essential Ingredients - Accused charged with sexual harassment under Section 12 POCSO Act - Victim (PW3) specifically deposed that the accused neither had sexual intercourse with her nor sexually assaulted or touched her in any manner - Allegation of threat to upload photographs was rendered speculative as the victim admitted she never provided such photographs to the accused - In the absence of reliable evidence establishing any act constituting sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 11 of the POCSO Act - Held - The offence under Section 12 is not made out beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 2, 15, 18, 20].

Criminal Procedure - Procedural Compliance - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 232 - Non-compliance of hearing - Trial court omitted to conduct a hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC after questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC - High Court held that non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless it resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused - Respondent-accused did not raise any case of prejudice - Held - The trial proceedings were not vitiated by this technical omission - [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 361 - Distinction between taking and allowing to accompany - High Court applied the principle established in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras - Distinguished between the act of taking and merely allowing a minor of sufficient understanding to accompany a person - Where a minor voluntarily leaves the protection of a guardian without inducement or active participation by the accused - it cannot be said that the accused has taken the minor - Held - Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence corroborating threats or coercion - [Paras 13, 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court affirmed.

Writ Law - Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition and Scope - Petitioner association challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a consequential circular issued by the Director of Private Schools which directed all private matriculation and CBSE schools to display their fee structures at school entrances and on websites - Petitioner contended that private unaided educational institutions are not public authorities as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act since they are not owned-controlled-or substantially financed by the Government - Respondents argued that education is a public service and fee disclosure is a regulatory requirement for transparency - Court analysed the exhaustive definition of public authority under Section 2(h) and applied the ratio in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala - Held - Private educational institutions which are not owned or substantially financed by the Government do not fall within the ambit of public authority - Mere statutory supervision or regulatory oversight by the State does not render an institution a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act - Consequently the Information Commission lacked jurisdiction to pass sweeping directions against private schools - [Paras 46-54].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction of Information Commission - Legislative vs Adjudicatory Powers - RTI Act 2005 - Sections 19 and 20 - Commission issued directions to the Director of Private Schools to ensure fee display in all private schools and imposed penalties on educational officials - Petitioner argued the Commission exceeded its adjudicatory mandate by passing legislative-style directions beyond the scope of the specific RTI application - Held - The jurisdiction of the Information Commission is limited to adjudicating the specific case before it and it cannot issue sweeping legislative directions or appoint officers from other departments as Public Information Officers as a remedial mechanism across the State - The direction of the Commission resulting in the impugned circular by the second respondent was beyond its competence and failed the test of legal scrutiny - [Paras 55-60].

Writ Law - Regulatory Powers - Education Law - Fee Disclosure - Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 - Rule 17(3) - Conflict between RTI jurisdiction and State regulatory framework - While the Court found the Information Commission's order without jurisdiction it observed that private schools are independently bound by Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules - This rule mandates every private school to display fee structures and other infrastructure details on notice boards and websites one month before the academic year - Held - Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the Information Commission the Director of Private Schools independently possesses regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction to enforce Rule 17(3) - The disclosure of fees is a benevolent provision helping parents make informed decisions without being exploited - Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct all private schools to comply with the statutory mandate of Rule 17(3) while setting aside the penalties imposed under the RTI Act - [Paras 67-77].

Writ Law - Privacy and Reasonable Restriction - Constitutional Law - Articles 14-19(1)(g) and 21 - Petitioner argued that compelling fee disclosure violates informational privacy and the right to establish institutions - Ratio in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar discussed - Held - Education is not a business and is subject to reasonable regulation to prevent profiteering - Fee structures determined by the statutory Fee Determination Committee are already in the public domain on the Committee’s website and thus no proprietary or confidential interest is violated by school-level display - The requirement for display is a reasonable regulatory measure in the interest of the general public - [Paras 21-40, 75].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of - The portion of the Information Commission's order imposing penalties and compensation is set aside - The direction to ensure display of fee structure is modified - Court directs the Director of Private Schools to ensure all private schools comply with Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 by displaying the approved fee structure on notice boards and websites annually.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Interpretation of Statutes - Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2023 - Section 4 - Retrospective operation - Amendment increased pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judges and transferred first appeals from High Court to District Courts with retrospective effect from 2007 - Petitioners argued that absence of saving clause would nullify 17 years of High Court judgments and take away vested rights - Single Judge had set aside retrospectivity as arbitrary - Division Bench analyzed legislative competence under Entry 11-A of Concurrent List and doctrine of purposive interpretation - Court noted that the amendment followed recommendations to reduce High Court pendency - Held - Legislature has competence to enact laws affecting jurisdiction - Forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law and not a vested substantive right - However - literal interpretation leading to nullification of thousands of concluded cases is manifestly absurd and unintended by the legislature - Section 4 of the Amendment Act is read down to exclude concluded matters and orders passed in pending proceedings from its retrospective operation - Retrospectivity confined only to the transfer of pending appeals to be governed by amended provisions from current stage - Single Judge order modified - [Paras 1-124].

Civil Law - Forum of Appeal - Procedural Law vs Substantive Right - Karnataka High Court Act 1961 - Sections 2 and 5 - Litigants contended that right to a specific forum for appeal is a vested right accruing on the date of suit institution - Reference made to Neena Aneja and SEBI v. Classic Credit Limited - Held - Right to appeal is substantive but the forum of appeal is procedural - Change in forum applies retrospectively to pending actions unless a contrary intention appears - Amendment by substitution implies the new rule replaces the old ab initio for pending matters - [Paras 49-60].

Writ Law - Equality Clause - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Challenge to High Court Amendment Act for treating Bengaluru Urban District differently where first appeals continue to lie to High Court from City Civil Court - Held - There is a clear distinction between Senior Civil Judges in districts and Judges in Bengaluru City Civil Court who are in the cadre of District Judges - Classification based on cadre and nature of jurisdiction is reasonable and has a nexus with the object of administration of justice - No discrimination found - [Paras 116-117].

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Interpretation - Doctrine of Reading Down - Language of Section 4 provided for retrospective effect from 28.08.2007 without any savings clause - Held - Courts are not powerless to read in words or restrict operation to avoid manifest absurdity or injustice - Legislative intent was to harmonize with the 2007 amendment and tackle pendency - Statutory provisions must be interpreted to serve their rightful purpose and spirit over literal wording - Retrospective operation restricted to save previous operations and things duly done - [Paras 64-90].

Decision: Writ Appeal (W.A No.200260/2025) disposed of – Writ Petition (W.P No.17588/2024) dismissed – Order of the Single Judge modified to the extent that Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act is read down rather than set aside – Concluded matters and prior orders in pending proceedings are saved – Pending first appeals to be transferred to jurisdictional courts as per the amendments.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Forum for Appeal - Appellant filed appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC challenging judgment dated 26.08.2025 in C.C.No.19 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Gannavaram acquitting accused under Section 255(1) CrPC - Appellant requested return of grounds to file before Sessions Court as per proviso to Section 372 CrPC citing Supreme Court precedent - Court observed that if the complainant is also a victim they can prefer appeal under the proviso to section 372 CrPC even in cases of dishonoured cheques - Held - Registry directed to return the original bundle to the appellant to represent the appeal within four weeks before the concerned Sessions Court - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Victim Right to Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 372 - Applicability to NI Act - Complainant in a proceeding under Section 138 NI Act who is also a victim is entitled to prefer an appeal against acquittal before the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC which is equivalent to Section 413 BNSS 2023 - Held - Complainant can prefer appeal before Sessions Court instead of High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC - [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeal returned – Registry directed to return the original bundle to the appellant to represent the appeal before the concerned Sessions Court within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Writ Law - Dismissal Approval - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Petitioner Municipal Corporation sought approval for dismissal of Respondent Clerk found guilty of masterminding octroi refund fraud - Internal enquiry found Respondent guilty of diverting Rs 4 10 885 to third-party accounts and receiving kickbacks - Industrial Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but rejected the approval application citing non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) proviso - Tribunal held that deductions for Provident Fund and Income Tax from wages and non-payment of an annual increment rendered the wage payment incomplete - High Court found that the Tribunal erroneously conflated regular November 2006 salary with the additional one month wages required under the proviso - Evidence showed Petitioner offered and sent Rs 14 468 via money order separately without deductions which the Tribunal ignored - Held - Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach that resulted in a corrupt employee claiming reinstatement with backwages - Findings of Tribunal were perverse and ignored material evidence on record - Writ petition allowed and dismissal approved - [Paras 1-43].

Labour Law - One Month Wages - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Proviso compliance - The requirement of paying one month wages is additional to the normal salary earned by the workman for the month of dismissal - Minor deficits or statutory deductions like Income Tax or Provident Fund do not ipso facto vitiate the approval application - Courts must distinguish between statutory deductions and other contractual deductions - Even if a deficit exists the Tribunal can direct the employer to deposit the shortfall while granting approval instead of setting aside the dismissal - Non-payment of an increment which was withheld or disputed at the time of application does not amount to violation of Section 33(2)(b) - Held - Objective of the provision is to provide solace to the employee and not to create technical loopholes for employees guilty of grave misconduct like corruption and forgery to escape consequences - [Paras 19-40].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of the Industrial Tribunal dated 07/05/2010 and 05/01/2012 set aside – Approval granted to the Petitioner's action of removal of the Respondent from service.

Criminal Law - Bail in Terrorism Cases - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 120-B - Appeal against dismissal of third bail application - Appellant allegedly headed the media cell of terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen and sent Message of Death email minutes before the 2008 Delhi serial blasts resulting in 26 deaths - Trial Court dismissed bail citing statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) - Appellant contended false implication and 17-year incarceration as an undertrial - High Court analyzed the material on record including identification by laptop vendor and recovery of sophisticated file-erasing software - Court observed that once charges are framed under UAPA the threshold of prima facie truth is met for the purpose of bail restrictions - Held - The gravity of the offense involving a trail of devastation and the active conspiratorial role of the appellant as a computer professional outweighs the length of incarceration when the trial is at its fag end - appeal dismissed - [Paras 42-107].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty versus National Security - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Applicability of KA Najeeb ratio - Appellant argued that 17 years of incarceration makes continued detention unconstitutional - High Court interpreted the interplay between statutory bars and constitutional powers - Observed that while Article 21 protects individual liberty it also reflects the State obligation to protect the security of the community - In prosecutions involving national security the sovereignty and integrity of the nation must prevail over personal liberty where a prima facie case of organized terrorism exists - Held - Prolonged custody does not operate as an automatic override to the statutory threshold of Section 43-D(5) when the trial progress is substantial - [Paras 80-99].

Criminal Law - Parity - Distinction in Roles - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Parity with co-accused - Appellant sought parity with co-accused Mohd Hakim who was granted bail - Court examined the role of Mohd Hakim who supplied ball bearings versus the appellant who allegedly headed the media cell and hacked wireless networks - Held - The role of a computer professional managing the strategic media communication for a banned organization cannot be equated with a peripheral participant - parity denied - [Paras 77-101].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial within eight months as per Supreme Court mandate – Observations on bail not to affect the final adjudication on merits.

Writ Law - Delisting of Vendors - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Natural Justice - Petitioner firm challenged order of temporary delisting from supplying Elastic Rail Clips on grounds of alleged sample failure - Respondents issued show cause notice and subsequently passed impugned order without considering the reply of the petitioner - Respondents contended reply was received after the prescribed 30 day period - Court observed that although reply was received after 30 days it reached the authorities nine days prior to the issuance of the final order - Held - Authorities ought to have considered the reply before passing the order - Failure to do so constitutes violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order quashed - [Paras 1-21].

Writ Law - Contractual Procedure - IRS Specification for ERC T-31-2021 - Clauses 15.1 and 15.4 - Mandatory Sampling Procedure - Samples of supplied materials were tested by Railway authorities without the presence of the representative of the petitioner - Specifications required sampling to be done in presence of firm representative or after due notice to witness the test - Admittedly the same was not followed in the present case - Held - Procedure for sampling and testing was not followed in accordance with the mandatory statutory conditions - Delisting based on flawed sampling is unsustainable - [Paras 11-13].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of Writ - Respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an opportunity to file an appeal against the delisting order - Held - Writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy where the challenge is based on patent violation of natural justice and non compliance with law regarding mandatory sampling procedures - [Para 18].

Writ Law - Grounds for Delisting - ISO Apex documents - Clause 4.2.2 - Scope of Temporary Delisting - Guidelines provide specific conditions for temporary delisting including repeated failures or direction from law enforcing agencies - Court observed that the show cause notice as well as the impugned notice were not covered under any of the specified clauses for temporary delisting - Held - Order of temporary delisting passed without adhering to the specified regulatory criteria is invalid - [Para 17].

Decision: WPA No. 24149 of 2025 is allowed – Show cause notice dated 20/08/2025 and impugned order dated 09/10/2025 are quashed – Respondents granted liberty to take fresh samples in presence of petitioner representatives and take action in accordance with law.