Disability Pension – Armed Forces Tribunal – Judicial Review – Medical Board Opinion – Constitutional and Lifestyle Diseases – Union of India challenged a batch of orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension to Army and Navy personnel suffering from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, primary hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, leukemia, panic disorder, hearing loss and other ailments – Union of India contended that opinion of Invaliding/Release Medical Board declaring such diseases as constitutional or lifestyle-related is final and binding under Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 and Navy Pension Regulations – Held: Opinion of Medical Board is not sacrosanct and is amenable to judicial scrutiny – Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine whether Medical Board opinion is reasoned, consistent with service records and statutory rules – Mere branding of disease as “constitutional” or “lifestyle” is not sufficient to deny disability pension [Paras 7, 14–18].

Pension Entitlement Rules, 2008 – Interpretation – No Restrictive Departure from 1982 Rules – Contention that Rules of 2008 introduced a stricter regime and diluted presumptions in favour of servicemen rejected – Held: Rules of 2008 expand and clarify entitlement and do not curtail benefits available under pre-2008 regime – Provisions relating to causal connection, manifestation of disease and aggravation are to be applied in a liberal and purposive manner – Rule 5 stating that mere manifestation of disease during service does not per se establish attributability does not negate presumption where service conditions show contribution or aggravation [Paras 10–11, 18].

Attributability and Aggravation – Presumption in Favour of Military Personnel – Burden of Proof – Where no disease is noted at the time of entry into service, presumption is that the serviceman was in sound physical condition – Subsequent deterioration in health during service raises presumption of service-related aggravation – Onus lies on employer to establish that disease is wholly unrelated to service – Serviceman not required to prove exact causation of diseases like hypertension or diabetes – Benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the serviceman [Paras 15, 17].

Medical Board – Requirement of Reasons – Transparency and Fairness – Medical Board must record clear, cogent and intelligible reasons while opining on attributability or aggravation – A bald or mechanical opinion that disease is constitutional or not connected with service, without reasons, vitiates denial of disability pension – Absence of reasons renders decision arbitrary and unsustainable – Tribunal and High Court entitled to interfere in such cases [Paras 14, 16].

Service Records – Evidentiary Value – Operational and Stressful Postings – Service records showing long tenure, postings in field/high altitude/operational areas and exposure to stress have substantial evidentiary value – Diseases arising or worsening during or after such service conditions can reasonably be linked to military service – Tribunal justified in relying upon service records and surrounding circumstances to hold aggravation [Paras 2–3, 13–14].

Low Medical Category – Superannuation / Premature Retirement – Entitlement to Disability Pension – Disability pension not confined only to cases of invalidation – Personnel retiring on superannuation, premature retirement or completion of tenure in low medical category are entitled to disability pension if disability is attributable to or aggravated by service and assessed at 20% or more – Regulations 173 (Army, 1961) and 37 (Army, 2008) affirm such entitlement [Paras 2, 12].

Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court will interfere with Tribunal’s orders only if findings are perverse, based on irrelevant material or ignore vital evidence – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Tribunal’s reasoning – Tribunal applied settled principles and beneficial interpretation of pension laws correctly [Paras 18–19].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed – Orders of Armed Forces Tribunal granting disability pension upheld – Interim orders vacated.

Motor Vehicles Law – Bike Taxis as Transport Vehicles – Sections 2(7), 2(25), 2(47), 41(4), MV Act, 1988; Rule 2, CMV Rules, 1989; Central Government Notification S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004; Central Government Clarification No. RT-11021/34/2023-MVL dated 22.01.2024 – Affirmative Finding – The High Court held that a motorcycle, capable of carrying a rider and a pillion passenger, falls within the definition of 'motorcab' under Section 2(25) and consequently within 'contract carriage' under Section 2(7) of the MV Act when used for hire or reward – The Central Government's 2004 notification explicitly lists motorcycles for hire to carry one pillion passenger as transport vehicles – This position was further clarified by the Central Government in 2024, advising States/UTs to process permit applications for motorcycles as contract carriages – The argument that CMV Rules' vehicle classification excludes motorcycles from carrying passengers for hire was rejected, as classification is based on construction, not commercial use – A previous Division Bench ruling affirming motorcycles as transport vehicles has attained finality – Motorcycles are legally classifiable as transport vehicles and contract carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Paras 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 121, 124].

Constitutional Law – Right to Trade and Business – Article 19(1)(g), 19(6), Constitution of India – Legitimate Business – The Court affirmed that operating bike taxis is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not being inherently dangerous, illegal, or res extra commercium – Any restrictions must be imposed by a valid law, be in the public interest, and be reasonable under Article 19(6) – A complete prohibition, while potentially falling under "restriction," requires strict scrutiny and substantiation by credible material demonstrating that less drastic measures would be insufficient to achieve the public interest objective – A blanket prohibition on bike taxi services, without a valid law and justification for its reasonableness and public interest, infringes Article 19(1)(g) [Paras 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95, 123, 125, 126].

Motor Vehicles Law – State Government's Power to Control Road Transport and Issue Permits – Sections 66, 67, 73, 74, 80, 96, MV Act, 1988; KODTTA Rules, 2016 – State Cannot Impose Blanket Ban – The MV Act, a Central legislation, occupies the field of motor vehicle regulation, preventing the State from enacting repugnant laws or excluding motorcycles as transport vehicles – While Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport and make schemes, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised by gazette notification, guided by objectives like last-mile connectivity and safety, not for a blanket ban on a class of vehicles – Sections 73, 74, and 80 mandate that Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) shall not ordinarily refuse contract carriage permit applications and must provide written reasons for any denial, precluding a blanket ban – The KODTTA Rules, defining 'taxi' as 'motorcab', implicitly cover bike taxis, meaning aggregators are entitled to operate bike taxi services under existing licenses, provided vehicle details are furnished – The State's contention of a policy prohibiting bike taxis was rejected due to lack of formal notification and contradictory actions like the Electric Bike Taxi Scheme – The State Government cannot impose a blanket ban on bike taxi services or refuse permits for motorcycles as transport vehicles without a valid, reasoned, and publicly notified policy consistent with the MV Act and constitutional rights [Paras 86, 87, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 139, 141, 147].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned order of the Single Judge is set aside – Motorcycle owners are granted liberty to file applications for registration as transport vehicles (yellow board) and for contract carriage permits – The State Government is directed to consider these applications without denying them on the ground that motorcycles cannot be operated as transport vehicles or contract carriages – Pending applications of aggregators are to be considered, and fresh applications are permitted, all to be processed in accordance with law and the Court's observations [Paras 149, 151, 152].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation – Suit for partition and injunction based on inheritance – Defendant sought rejection of amended plaint alleging challenge to Will barred by limitation – Plaintiff pleaded lack of knowledge of alleged Will of 2008 until much later – Held: When plaintiff asserts knowledge of essential facts at a later stage, plea of limitation becomes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at threshold – Rejection of plaint is a drastic power to be exercised sparingly – Application dismissed [Paras 7, 12–14, 18–19].

Pleadings – Amended Plaint – Alleged contradiction between original and amended pleadings – Defendant contended inconsistent stands on date of knowledge of Will – Held: Entire plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole – Alleged inconsistencies and truthfulness of pleadings are matters for trial and evidence and cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 9–10, 19].

Civil Procedure – Order X Rule 2 CPC – Scope and object – Defendant sought examination of plaintiff to test veracity of pleadings – Held: Order X Rule 2 is an enabling provision to seek clarification of pleadings and cannot substitute cross-examination or be used to test truthfulness – Court cannot assume role of counsel for a party – Provision not meant for roving enquiry before framing of issues [Paras 11, 14–17].

Succession Law – Will – Attesting Witness – Knowledge of contents – Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Defendant argued that plaintiff, being attesting witness, must be deemed to have knowledge of contents of Will – Held: Law only requires witness to see testator sign the Will – Attesting witness need not know contents of Will – No presumption of knowledge can be drawn solely from attestation [Paras 20].

Partition Suit – Inheritance Dispute – Alleged fraudulent Will – Threat of alienation – Cause of action – Plaintiff pleaded joint ownership upon death of mother and subsequent coercion by defendants – Held: Plaint discloses triable issues and cannot be termed vexatious or illusory at threshold [Paras 2–4, 14, 19, 21].

Decision: Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order X Rule 2 CPC dismissed – Suit to proceed – Matter listed before Joint Registrar on 15.04.2026.

Mortgage – Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Invalid Mortgage – Suit filed for recovery of mortgage money on basis of mortgage deed executed by power agent – Power of attorney authorised borrowing only from private financiers or nationalised banks – Mortgage executed in favour of individual plaintiffs and consideration adjusted towards antecedent debts – Held: Agent acted beyond authority conferred – Power agent cannot enlarge scope of mandate – Mortgage deed invalid and not binding on principals [Paras 14–19].

Hindu Law – Ancestral Property – Debt Binding on Coparceners – Suit property ancestral – Mortgage executed by agent of Karta – Debt binding on minor coparceners only if incurred for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Mortgage executed for adjustment of antecedent debts without proof of family necessity – Held: Debt not binding on coparceners (defendants 2 & 3) [Paras 17–18].

Civil Law – Consideration – Adjustment of Antecedent Debts – Major portion of mortgage consideration adjusted towards alleged prior promissory notes – No authority under power deed to discharge antecedent debts – No evidence of actual flow of funds to principals – Held: Absence of valid consideration flowing to defendants – Mortgage unenforceable [Paras 15–16].

Limitation – Mortgage Suit – Part Payment – Section 19, Limitation Act – Mortgage executed in 1998 – Suit filed in 2015 – Plaintiffs relied on alleged part payment by agent in 2004 – Agent not authorised and payment not shown to be from debtor’s funds – Held: Part payment by unauthorised agent does not extend limitation – Endorsement held invalid – Suit barred by limitation [Paras 20–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – First Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court dismissed suit after appreciating oral and documentary evidence – Findings found consistent with law and evidence – Held: No perversity or error warranting interference – Judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2019 in O.S. No.177 of 2015 confirmed – Mortgage held invalid and unenforceable – Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Rigours of Section 37 – Recovery of 960 capsules of Parivon Spas Plus containing Tramadol (480 grams) and 22.92 grams of heroin from vehicle driven by petitioner – Held that Tramadol recovered constitutes commercial quantity – Twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act mandatory – Court not satisfied that accused is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Bail rejected [Paras 10–11, 17].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Interpretation – Court reiterated that “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie satisfaction – In absence of material to show innocence and likelihood of non-repetition of offence, embargo on grant of bail operates – Liberal approach impermissible in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity [Paras 11–16].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Likelihood of Repetition – Status report disclosing prior FIR against petitioner resulting in life sentence – Held that antecedents and nature of allegations indicate possibility of re-offending and witness intimidation – Factor weighs against grant of bail [Paras 3, 17].

Bail – Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial – Plea of prolonged incarceration rejected – Petitioner failed to place order sheets to show delay attributable to prosecution – Mere delay cannot override mandatory requirements of Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail cannot be granted solely on ground of delay [Paras 19–21].

Principles of Bail – NDPS Offences – Supreme Court Precedents – Reliance placed on Pinki v. State of U.P., State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, and NCB v. Kashif – Held that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, negation of bail is the rule and grant is an exception [Paras 8–16, 18].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Observations confined to bail proceedings and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 23–24].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal and State Appeal – Prosecution alleged conspiracy and murder of deceased Jayaram by Accused Nos.1 to 4 using chopper and sickle – Trial Court acquitted accused for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 450 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court reappreciated entire evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality in acquittal warranting interference [Paras 1–2, 31–33].

Evidence – Appreciation of Testimony – Sole Alleged Eyewitness – P.W.4 claimed to have seen accused fleeing with weapons – Cross-examination revealed he was not present at spot at relevant time and had no direct knowledge of incident – His presence contradicted by evidence of P.W.3 and police witnesses – Held: P.W.4 was a chance witness and not a reliable eyewitness – Evidence not trustworthy [Paras 17, 23–24, 26–30].

Evidence Act – Section 6 – Res Gestae – Earliest Information – Complaint Ex.P.1 lodged by wife of deceased based on information received from others – No immediate statement by eyewitness to police – Information not forming part of same transaction – Held: Section 6 not attracted as statements lacked proximity and certainty [Paras 24, 27–30].

Witness Credibility – Interested and Related Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (daughter) not eyewitnesses – Their evidence only hearsay as to occurrence – No corroboration from independent witnesses – Held: Their testimony insufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 14–16, 31].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Section 27 Evidence Act – Alleged recovery of chopper, sickle and vehicle at instance of accused – Panch witnesses to seizure and recovery mahazars turned hostile – No independent proof of recovery – Mere FSL report showing blood group ‘O’ insufficient without proved seizure – Held: Recovery not established [Paras 18–20, 30–31].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Multiple Chop and Stab Injuries – Brutal nature of crime proved – However, medical evidence alone cannot connect accused in absence of reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence – Held: Medical evidence corroborative, not substantive [Paras 5, 11, 31].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Two views possible on evidence – Trial Court’s view plausible and based on appreciation of record – No compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Presumption of innocence reinforced – Held: Appeals liable to be dismissed [Paras 31–33].

Decision – Criminal Appeal No.1620/2025 (Victim’s Appeal) dismissed – Criminal Appeal No.1905/2025 (State Appeal) dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2025 in S.C. No.1169/2017 affirmed.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Bail – Statutory Bar under Section 43-D(5) – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act – Accused No.14 alleged to be District President of PFI and actively involved in conspiracy, radicalisation, recruitment and fund raising for terrorist activities – Trial Court rejected bail holding accusations prima facie true – Held: Material on record discloses reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true – Bar under Section 43-D(5) squarely attracted – No interference warranted [Paras 4, 10, 21].

Bail – Successive Bail Applications – Change in Circumstances – Accused had earlier bail applications rejected – Subsequent bail petition maintainable only on demonstrable change in fact or law – Grounds urged substantially similar to earlier applications except delay and sanction issues – Held: No substantial change in circumstances justifying grant of bail [Paras 11–12, 21].

UAPA – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 45 – Absence of Sanction under Section 18 – Contention that no sanction granted for offence under Section 18 UAPA – Held: Sanction requirement relates to taking cognizance of offences and not accused-specific – Cognizance already taken for scheduled offences – Absence of sanction qua a particular provision does not ipso facto entitle accused to bail [Paras 14–15].

UAPA – Terrorist Funding – Section 17 – Seizure of Cash – Alleged Non-Compliance with Section 25 – Appellant contended seized cash was legitimate and procedure under Chapter V not followed – Held: Procedural lapses, if any, in seizure do not go to root of prosecution case at bail stage – Allegations and material disclose involvement in fund raising – Whether ingredients satisfied is matter for trial [Paras 16].

Evidence – Bail Stage – Scope of Appreciation – At bail stage under UAPA, Court not required to conduct mini-trial or evaluate sufficiency of evidence in detail – Only prima facie satisfaction required – Held: Trial Court correctly applied settled principles [Paras 16, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Case Diary – Section 172(2) CrPC – Application by Accused to Summon Case Diary – Appellant sought summoning of entire case diary under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Case diary can be called for only by Court for its aid – Accused has no right or locus to demand production – Application rightly dismissed [Paras 17–20].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over two years – Large number of witnesses cited – Held: Mere long incarceration and pendency of trial, in absence of exceptional circumstances, cannot override statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) UAPA [Paras 6, 21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order dated 02.05.2025 rejecting bail in Special Case No.744 of 2023 affirmed – I.A. No.2 of 2025 seeking summoning of case diary dismissed – No relief granted to appellant.

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Mandatory Injunction – Suit initially filed for bare injunction later amended to include relief of mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment and construction – Trial Court allowed application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property with help of Surveyor – Held: In a suit seeking mandatory injunction, proper measurement and identification of offending construction is essential to avoid execution difficulties – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner justified [Paras 4–5].

Civil Suit – Bare Injunction vs Mandatory Injunction – Change of Circumstances – Earlier application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner dismissed when suit was only for bare injunction – Subsequently, prayer for mandatory injunction introduced by amendment – Held: Dismissal of earlier application does not bar a fresh application when there is a subsequent change in circumstances – Doctrine of res judicata not attracted [Paras 7–8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order appointing Advocate Commissioner – Held: Order passed by Trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal – Appointment would assist Court in adjudicating real controversy – No ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution [Paras 8–9].

Measurement of Property – Role of Advocate Commissioner – Direction issued that Advocate Commissioner shall measure suit property with assistance of Surveyor with reference to title deeds of both parties and revenue records – Held: Such exercise would aid effective adjudication and precise identification of disputed constructions [Para 10].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner upheld – Directions issued regarding manner of measurement – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Family Law - Child Custody – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Tender Years Doctrine – Appeal by mother challenging Family Court judgment granting sole custody of two minor children to father – Court examined continued relevance of tender years doctrine – Held: Doctrine founded on outdated stereotypes and cannot be applied as a determinative rule in modern custody disputes – Custody must be decided solely on best interests and welfare of children [Paras 36–39, 77(I)].

Child Custody – Parental Alienation – Conduct of Parent – Evidence showed sustained and systematic exclusion of father from children’s lives since 2018 – Repeated relocations across multiple States without court permission – Children exposed to one-sided narrative – Held: Parent cannot deliberately alienate children and thereafter claim custody as primary caregiver – Such conduct militates against welfare of children [Paras 48–53].

Child Custody – Wishes of Child – Limited Evidentiary Weight in Alienation Cases – Son aged about 12 years expressed hostility towards father – Court interacted with children – Held: Wishes of child relevant but not decisive – Where preference appears conditioned by prolonged alienation, it cannot override judicial determination of best interests [Paras 55–56].

Child Custody – Siblings – Joint Upbringing – Two siblings aged about 12 and 6 years – Held: Separation of siblings would be detrimental to emotional stability and holistic development – Welfare lies in unified upbringing under one custodian [Paras 57–58, 77(IV)].

Child Custody – Financial Capacity – Not Sole Criterion – Mother asserted superior earning capacity for first time in appeal – Documents not part of trial court record – Held: Comparative financial capacity is only one factor and cannot outweigh emotional, psychological and developmental welfare – Additional evidence at appellate stage declined under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC [Paras 42–47, 61].

Child Custody – Working Mother – Career Advancement – Allegation that Family Court penalised mother for pursuing career – Held: Judgment does not fault mother for employment – Concern was repeated unexplained relocations adversely impacting children’s stability [Para 71].

Child Custody – Relocation Outside India – Rejected – Mother sought relocation of children abroad – Held: Permitting relocation would effectively deprive father of meaningful physical access – Virtual contact insufficient substitute for parental presence – Children to remain within territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts [Paras 67–70, 77(II)].

Child Custody – Allegations of Sexual Abuse – False and Motivated Pleas – Serious allegations raised belatedly in affidavit of evidence without pleadings or particulars – Held: Allegations appear motivated and in nature of counterblast – Strongly deprecated by Court [Paras 53–54].

Parental Alienation – Psychological Impact on Child – Court relied on national and international jurisprudence – Held: Alienation harms child’s emotional health and right to love and affection of both parents – Courts must actively arrest such tendencies [Paras 56, 62–64].

Contempt of Court – Interim Custody Orders – Disposal of Appeal – Contempt petition alleging violation of interim access orders – Appeal itself finally decided – Held: Not expedient to examine disputed compliance of interim orders once appeal disposed of – Contempt petition closed without adjudication on merits [Paras 72–76].

Decision: Matrimonial Appeal dismissed – Custody of both minor children affirmed in favour of father – Tender Years Doctrine held non-determinative – Relocation application rejected – Children to remain in India – Contempt Petition disposed of without findings – Parties at liberty to seek visitation/access directions from Family Court – No order as to costs [Paras 77–79].