Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

Criminal Law - Electricity Act, 2003 – Theft of Electric Lines – Conviction – Accused convicted for theft of copper wires from 66 K.V. electricity transmission line under Section 136 of Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC – Prosecution proved interruption of supply, theft of 800 meters of copper wire and recovery of stolen material at the instance of accused – Conviction upheld [Paras 2, 18–21].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Evidence of complainant (Junior Engineer, KPTCL), Assistant Lineman and Investigating Officer found cogent and reliable – Recovery of stolen copper wires and tools from Tata Sumo vehicle and forest area proved through seizure and spot mahazars – Hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when official and corroborative evidence inspires confidence [Paras 10–15, 18–20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Independent witnesses to recovery mahazar (PWs.6 to 8) turned hostile – Held: Prosecution case does not fail merely because panch witnesses turned hostile when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses [Paras 15–20].

Section 136 Electricity Act – Ingredients – Proof – Prosecution established dishonest intention, unauthorised removal of electric property, identification of stolen wires belonging to KPTCL and lack of consent of owner/licensee – Essential ingredients of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 18–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit of probation declined considering nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused arrested on 25.09.2010 and remained in custody till release on bail on 13.09.2012 – Having already undergone one year, eleven months and eighteen days of sentence out of two years imposed – Held: Entitled to set-off of period of detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [Paras 22–27].

Sentence – Modification – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified by granting set-off for period already undergone – No useful purpose in remanding accused to custody for remaining few days [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 136 Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified by granting benefit of set-off – Appellants directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Order].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

SARFAESI Act – Parallel Proceedings – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners challenged SARFAESI actions under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 after having unsuccessfully litigated in earlier writ petitions and appeals up to the Supreme Court – Held: Present writ petition barred by constructive res judicata – Petitioners impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already adjudicated finally in earlier proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Res Judicata – Fragmented Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners’ attempt to question the validity of SARFAESI proceedings afresh without disclosing full litigation history amounted to strategic fragmentation – Held: Parties must place all claims and defences in one proceeding – Piecemeal litigation burdens the judicial system and is legally barred under the Henderson Principle and Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Adjudication – Prior Dismissal by Apex Court – Petitioners had already pursued writ petitions, writ appeals, review petitions, and SLP before the Supreme Court which were all dismissed – Held: Judicial discipline demands that concluded controversies not be reopened under the guise of new technical challenges [Para 4].

Writ Appeal – Non-Prosecution – Appeal Dismissed – Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, appellants repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the appeal – Final hearing saw no representation – Held: Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Application to implead legal heirs also dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (for impleading legal heirs of deceased appellant) also dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2025 upheld [Para 11].

Criminal Procedure – Quashment of FIR – Scope of Section 528 BNSS (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly – FIR cannot be quashed at threshold when allegations, taken at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate defence material at investigation stage [Paras 6–11].

Dowry Harassment – Cruelty by Husband and In-laws – FIR Allegations – Specific allegations of demand of ₹30 lakhs, ₹50 lakhs, jewellery, physical assault, threats to life and misappropriation of stridhan – Allegations disclose continuing offence – Prima facie case made out – Quashing declined [Paras 2, 4, 11].

Criminal Investigation – Stage of Interference – Investigation Pending – Charge-sheet not filed – Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering during investigation unless FIR discloses no offence at all – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure principles – FIR not an encyclopaedia [Paras 9–11].

Section 188 CrPC – Offences Allegedly Committed Outside India – Sanction of Central Government – Sanction not required at stage of registration of FIR or investigation – Requirement arises at stage of cognizance/trial – Allegations disclose commission of offences partly in India as well – FIR not liable to be quashed on this ground [Paras 12–13].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Defence Pleas – Delay in FIR – Alleged Omnibus Allegations – Foreign Residence – Defence contentions regarding photographs, mediation, notices, travel history and alleged extortion – Held: Disputed questions of fact – Matters for trial – Not grounds for quashing FIR [Paras 3–4, 14].

Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of FIR – Petition sought quashing of FIR alone without placing charge-sheet or cognizance order on record – As per Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra – Once cognizance is taken, FIR can be quashed under Section 528 BNSS only if charge-sheet and cognizance order are specifically assailed – Petition held not maintainable [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Facts – Conduct of Petitioners – Respondents alleged suppression of proceedings under Domestic Violence Act and divorce petition – Court noted lack of bona fides but primarily declined relief on merits and maintainability [Para 4.1].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No.198/2025 not quashed – Investigation to proceed in accordance with law – Observations not to influence trial Court.

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.