Service Law – CRPF – Dismissal from Service – Absence Without Leave – Wilful Misconduct – Petitioner, enrolled in CRPF on 01.11.2006 and serving as Constable (CT/WC), proceeded on sanctioned leave from 19.05.2018 to 05.06.2018 – On expiry, could not report due to road accident causing foot injury – Subsequently hospitalised at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 for non-healing ulcer of the left foot – Respondents, without considering medical record, declared petitioner a proclaimed person/deserter vide order dated 15.12.2018 under Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 and dismissed him ex parte vide order dated 25.04.2019 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 – Held: Absence accompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence cannot be presumed to be wilful – Medical record neither discredited nor meaningfully considered – Finding of wilfulness stood vitiated – Orders set aside – Petitioner reinstated with continuity and arrears of salary at 6% interest [Paras 2–6, 20, 33–34].

Desertion vs. Absence Without Leave – Animus Deserendi – Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 – Distinction between desertion and absence without leave necessarily depends on the animus of the absent member – Where absence is traced to medical incapacity and not to any intent to permanently remain away, the charge of desertion cannot be sustained – Mechanical invocation of Rule 31 without reconciling petitioner's medical condition or examining whether he was incapacitated rather than absconding amounts to non-application of mind – Statutory power cannot be exercised in abstraction of facts and must be tethered to reason – Charges framed under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 for minor offences could not have been escalated to dismissal by conflating absence without leave with desertion [Paras 21–23].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Enquiry – Effective Service – Mere dispatch of notices does not satisfy the mandate of fair opportunity – An administrative order visited with civil consequences must be preceded by real and effective opportunity of being heard – Respondents failed to establish actual or constructive service in a manner ensuring the petitioner's participation – Ex parte enquiry conducted in such circumstances constitutes a façade of fairness rather than genuine compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 8, 28–29].

Proportionality of Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Judicial Review – Scope – Punishment must suit both the offence and the offender – Dismissal, the harshest penalty, imposed upon a petitioner in service since 01.11.2006 for absence intertwined with medical exigencies is shockingly disproportionate – Courts may interfere where punishment is vindictive, unduly harsh, or in outrageous defiance of logic – Discipline and individual dignity are complementary constitutional values; State as employer in a uniformed force remains bound by fairness under Articles 14 and 21 [Paras 24–27, 30–32].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Service Jurisprudence – Judicial review is not limited to procedural infirmities but extends to cases where findings are perverse, material evidence is ignored, or punishment is disproportionate – Where no reasonable grounds exist for formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review is permissible – A finding based on no evidence, as opposed to one merely against the weight of evidence, constitutes an abuse of power [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 15.12.2018 declaring petitioner as deserter/proclaimed person and order dated 25.04.2019 dismissing him from service set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with continuity for all purposes – Respondents directed to release all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order [Para 34].

Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – International Child Removal – Minor child (Canadian citizen) removed from Canada to India by father without consent of mother during pendency of custody proceedings – Ontario Court directed return of child – Father acted in defiance of foreign court order – Held: Removal without consent and contrary to existing arrangement renders custody unlawful – Custody with father declared illegal [Paras 61–62].

Jurisdiction – Applicability of Foreign Law – Parties married under Canadian civil law and submitted to jurisdiction of Canadian courts – Father participated in proceedings without objection – Held: Parties bound by Canadian legal framework governing custody – Cannot later invoke personal law to defeat jurisdiction [Paras 46–50].

Custody Rights – Sole vs Joint Custody – Mother had exclusive custody since September 2024 with father’s consent – Weekend visitation arrangement does not constitute joint custody – Held: Informal access/visitation does not dilute lawful custody of primary caregiver [Paras 56–60].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Minor aged about 5 years born and raised in Canada – Removal to India disrupts stable environment, education and emotional security – Held: Best interest lies in restoring child to mother in native country – Welfare overrides competing legal claims [Paras 71–78].

Foreign Court Orders – Comity of Courts – Though not determinative, foreign court order directing return of child reinforces conclusion of unlawful custody – Indian courts must give due weight while prioritising child welfare [Paras 62, 68–69].

Parental Allegations – Irrelevance without Proof – Allegations regarding mother’s conduct (adulterous relationship) raised by father rejected – Father had earlier consented to mother’s custody despite such allegations – Held: Unsubstantiated claims cannot override welfare of child [Paras 74].

Decision: Petition allowed – Custody of minor directed to be handed over to mother/grandfather forthwith – Child to be returned to Canada – Liberty granted to father to pursue remedies before Canadian court – Operation of order stayed for two weeks.

UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Overground Worker – Logistical Support – Long Incarceration – Appellant alleged to be a courier, messenger and overground worker of CPI (Maoist) who collected levy of Rs. 5 lakhs from a contractor on the direction of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu – Cash, a letter of demand and other incriminating articles recovered from his possession – Charge sheet filed against six accused; out of 160 witnesses only five examined so far – Appellant in custody since 05.01.2020, completing over six years of incarceration – Held: Rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA yield where there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the near future and incarceration has already exceeded a substantial period; appellant entitled to bail [Paras 6, 12, 13].

UAPA – Bail – Parity – Distinguishable Role of Co-accused – NIA opposed bail citing rejection of bail of co-accused Kunwar Ganjhu in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 944 of 2025 – Held: Role of Kunwar Ganjhu under para 17.50.3 of the charge sheet is distinguishable as he was directly involved in extortion from contractors by putting them in fear of bodily injury and was a habitual offender, whereas the present appellant's role under para 17.50.2 is confined to that of a courier and messenger providing logistical support – Parity not applicable [Paras 10, 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – UAPA – Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Rigours of Section 43D(5) melt down where trial completion within reasonable time is unlikely and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – Held: Section 43D(5) UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 NDPS Act and does not impose a precondition of prima facie innocence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each – Condition imposed that appellant shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Accidental Death vs. Homicidal Death – Appellants convicted for allegedly running a tractor over the deceased with an intention to kill at the instance of co-accused – The deceased was admitted to the District Hospital as an accidental injury case and the hospital communication to police also mentioned it as an accidental injury – The FIR was lodged more than 49 hours after the incident without plausible explanation – Eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3 contradicted PW-1 in cross-examination on the material point of taking the injured to the hospital – Defence witness DW-1 deposed that the incident was a road accident caused by a loaded tractor-trolley – Possibility of false implication on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 38-42].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – 49 Hours – No Plausible Explanation – Prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain delay of more than 49 hours in lodging the FIR despite eyewitnesses being present and accompanying the informant to the hospital – Delay gives opportunity for deliberation and embellishment of prosecution story – Hospital records (Ext. Ka-17) showed deceased was admitted as an accidental injury case – Held: In the absence of proper explanation for delay, evidence must be scrutinised meticulously; delay in the present case creates serious doubt about the prosecution version [Paras 33-39].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Internal Contradictions – PW-2 (Iftekhar Hussain) stated in cross-examination that he left the place of occurrence after 15 minutes and did not take the injured to the hospital – PW-3 (Arshad Ali) also stated he did not take the injured to the hospital and left for his village – These statements directly contradict PW-1 (the first informant) who stated PW-2 and PW-3 helped him take the injured to the hospital – Held: Material contradictions between prosecution witnesses undermine the reliability of the prosecution case [Paras 40, 41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants Irfan and Saleem (on bail): bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Appellant Faeem (in jail): to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Super Speciality Course – Pending Criminal Case – Bail – Right to Continue Studies – Petitioner enrolled in M.Ch. (Urology) course at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences could not appear for the November-2025 examination due to registration of Crime No.179/2025 by Madanapally Police, Andhra Pradesh for offences under the BNS and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act – Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapally on 05.01.2026 – Respondents opposed continuation of course citing pendency of the criminal case – Held: Pendency of a criminal case, where trial is yet to conclude, does not render the accused guilty – No impediment exists for the petitioner to continue his course and appear for examination – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit petitioner to continue course till May/June-2026 – Respondent 4-University directed to permit petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit the petitioner to continue M.Ch. (Urology) course till completion in May/June-2026 – Respondent No. 4-University directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility.

Education Law – Year Down Categorisation – Attendance Shortfall – Unit Test Absence – Validity of YD Classification – Petitioner's attendance during Third Semester fell below 30% against the prescribed minimum of 75% under Clause 3.6.1 (Criteria 1) of the Student Handbook – Petitioner also remained absent in both Unit Tests in violation of Clause 3.6.2 (Criteria 2) – University issued communication dated 30.01.2026 placing petitioner in "YD" category without declaring end-semester examination result – Held: YD classification is a lawful and necessary consequence of failure to satisfy Criteria 1 and Criteria 2; petition dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Academic Progression – YD Rule – Independent Bar – End-Semester Result Irrelevant – Petitioner contended that YD status could not be invoked without first declaring end-semester examination result – Held: Failure to fulfill attendance (Criteria 1) and Unit Test requirements (Criteria 2) operates as a distinct and independent bar to academic progression, irrespective of the outcome of the end-semester examination – Plain reading of Clause 3.6 of Student Handbook leaves no ambiguity in this regard [Para 14].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – Interim Judicial Direction – No Waiver of Academic Deficiency – Petitioner argued that the University's proposal permitting him to appear in the Third Semester examination, acted upon pursuant to order dated 14.12.2025 in W.P. No. 46548/2025, created an estoppel against imposition of YD – Held: An interim or ad-hoc arrangement permitting a student to merely appear in an examination cannot operate to waive substantive statutory academic deficiencies; mandate of the Rule remains undisturbed [Para 15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – YD categorisation upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 – No order as to costs.

Properties Beyond Jurisdiction – Counter Claim Rightly Rejected – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Premi House, Guna – Defendant No. 8 (petitioner), a legal heir of Babulal, filed counter claim seeking partition and declaration of title in respect of properties at village Ruthiyai, District Guna, which fell within jurisdiction of Court at Raghogarh and not Guna Court – Trial Court rejected counter claim; appellate court dismissed appeal – Held: Counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) is required to be treated as a plaint and governed by rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction; when counter claim properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are valid [Paras 10-14].

Section 17 CPC – Suits for Immovable Property in Different Jurisdictions – Counter Claim Cannot Be Read with Plaint – Petitioner invoked Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together to argue that since one property was within Guna Court's jurisdiction, the entire counter claim was maintainable – Held: Counter claim is independent of the plaint and must satisfy requirements of Section 17 CPC independently – Section 17 requires that the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same – No cause of action was pleaded in the counter claim nor was there any similarity of cause of action between plaint and counter claim; Section 17 CPC not attracted [Paras 12-16].

Counter Claim – Must Be Against Plaintiff – Not Against Co-Defendants – Counter claim is further liable to be rejected on the ground that it was vague and did not mention addresses of properties at serial nos. 2 to 5 – Relief of partition claimed was against co-defendants only and not against plaintiffs – Cause of action for filing counter claim not specifically pleaded – Counter claim can be filed by defendant against plaintiff and may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant, but cannot be solely directed against co-defendants [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Miscellaneous petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court rejecting counter claim upheld – No interference warranted.

Service Law – Examination Cancellation – Paper Leak – Assistant Professor Recruitment – Validity of Cancellation of Written Examination Result – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of result of written examination held on 16th/17th April 2025 for 910 posts of Assistant Professors in aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges – Two FIRs were lodged immediately after examination alleging that question papers were sold to candidates for money – STF investigation identified 21 suspicious mobile numbers linked to accused; 19 candidates found to have passed the examination were connected to these numbers – Result declared on 04.09.2025 was cancelled vide notice dated 20.01.2026 – Held: Cancellation of result is valid and justified; petitions disposed of [Paras 3-4, 6, 27-28].

Systematic Irregularities – Standard of Proof – Probability Test – State not required to prove paper leak beyond reasonable doubt to cancel examination result – Two charge sheets filed on 08.06.2025 against four accused under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) BNS for petty organised crime, extortion and cheating – STF report established prima facie that at least 19 candidates were benefited and papers of at least five subjects were leaked – Possibility of wider leakage not ruled out – Held: Decision passes the probability test; systemic irregularity established on available material [Paras 19-23].

Segregation of Tainted Candidates – When Entire Result Can Be Cancelled – Question of whether individual candidates could be segregated from tainted ones considered – Examination was limited in scope: 910 posts, 33 subjects, 52 centres, six districts, 224 petitioners before Court – Unlike Pan-India examinations, even limited irregularities in a narrow-campus examination justify cancellation of entire result when segregation of beneficiaries is not fully possible – Petitioners have no indefeasible right to be selected or compel continuation of a tainted process – Fresh examination schedule already published; petitioners may participate [Paras 14, 18, 24-27].

Candidate's Right – No Vested Right in Tainted Process – Selection process was not concluded; interview stage had not commenced – Petitioners cannot claim to be finally selected as they had yet to face interview – A candidate has no indefeasible right to force the State to conclude an examination process whose integrity has been compromised – Fairness of examination is paramount and cannot be permitted to be compromised under any circumstance [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Impugned decision to cancel the result of written examination upheld – Petitioners at liberty to participate in fresh written examination for which schedule has been published.

Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.