Civil Law - Succession Law – Revocation of Probate – Section 263 – Illustrative Scope – Division Bench held that the five explanations under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act are illustrative and not exhaustive – Court emphasized that “just cause” is a flexible standard designed to empower courts to intervene in varied situations where revocation may be warranted in the interests of justice – Held: The term “just cause” allows for wider judicial discretion beyond the listed explanations [Paras 29–32, 36–38].

Interpretation – Explanation Clauses – Purpose and Effect – Explanation to Section 263 does not control or restrict the scope of the main provision – Cited authoritative principles of statutory interpretation to affirm that explanations elucidate rather than limit or expand the operative provision – Held: The deeming fiction in the Explanation identifies certain situations as “just cause” but does not preclude other factual scenarios from being so held [Paras 21–28, 30–31].

Statutory Construction – Purposive Interpretation – While interpreting Section 263, Court applied the doctrine of purposive construction – Held: Legislative change in phraseology from “just cause is” (in prior Acts) to “just cause shall be deemed to exist” (in 1925 Act) indicates intent to broaden judicial discretion – A restrictive reading would defeat the provision’s purpose of ensuring fair probate proceedings [Paras 17–20, 27–33].

Probate Law – Procedural Lapses and Revocation – Default in removal of office objections by caveator’s counsel led to dismissal of caveat – Petitioner filed for revocation citing suspicious circumstances of death and invalid execution of Will (attestation not in presence of testator) – Held: Even if caveat was dismissed, substantive objections that point to a defective grant can constitute “just cause” under Section 263 – Revocation may be justified if trial is required to examine such allegations [Paras 34–35].

Precedent Overruled – George Anthony Harris v. Millicent Spencer and Sharad Shankarrao Mane v. Ashabai Shripati Mane – Division Bench overruled the restrictive interpretation in these earlier judgments – Held: They do not lay down the correct law on the scope of Section 263 – View of Justice Manish Pitale that explanations are illustrative upheld [Paras 3, 36, 38(C)].

Decision: Reference answered – Explanations to Section 263 are illustrative – Circumstances beyond explanations (a) to (e) may form “just cause” – Earlier decisions taking contrary view overruled – Matter remitted to Single Judge for further proceedings.

Criminal Law – Section 61(2) r/w 318(3), 316(5), and 112 BNS - Paper Leak – Departmental Examination – Economic Offence – CBI Investigation – Bail Granted – Delay in Trial – Procedural Irregularities – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused railway officials and candidates allegedly conspired to leak the CLI departmental examination paper in exchange for bribes – Leaked paper allegedly handwritten by paper-setter and circulated via intermediaries – Recovered documents and cash used as key evidence – CBI relied on confessions, call intercepts, and seizures – Applicants contended lack of direct recovery, lack of expert opinion, procedural violations under BNSS – Court held that trial unlikely to begin soon due to lack of sanction and large volume of evidence – 16 co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted to all remaining applicants on parity and due to prolonged incarceration without trial [Paras 1–85].

Evidence Law – Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Admissibility – Custodial Statements – Recovery Before Arrest – Handwriting and Voice Analysis Inconclusive – Several recoveries based on pre-arrest disclosures – No expert verification of handwriting or voice samples produced – Statements recorded without magisterial supervision – Held: Statements inadmissible under law and cannot be sole basis for denial of bail [Paras 30–31, 58–61].

Search and Seizure – Section 105 BNSS – Audio-Visual Recording Mandatory – Procedural Non-compliance by CBI – Accused argued seizure proceedings were not fully recorded on video as required under BNSS – Lack of sketch map in some cases – CBI failed to justify procedural lapses – Held: Such deficiencies weaken evidentiary value – Favors bail [Paras 32–33, 52–53].

Bail Principles – Economic Offences – Serious Allegation Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – CBI opposed bail citing economic offence seriousness – Court reiterated principles from Sanjay Chandra, Satender Antil, Dataram Singh, and Manish Sisodia – Held: Bail is rule, jail is exception – Long trial delay, lack of prior criminal history, and co-accused parity are valid considerations for bail [Paras 34–35, 70–78].

Bail – Role of Accused – Individual Allegations Considered – Bail Conditions Imposed – Specific roles detailed for each accused: from paper-setter to bribe collector to candidate – Some named in FIR, others only in charge-sheet – Many with no recovery or direct link – All applicants in custody for over 7 months – Bail granted subject to conditions of non-tampering, attendance, and non-intimidation of witnesses [Paras 1–85].

Decision: Bail allowed – All 8 applicants (Sushant Parashar, Ramayan, Ajit Kumar Singh, Niraj Kumar Verma, Raj Narayan Singh Yadav, Surjeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Sanjay Kumar Mishra) granted bail on personal bonds and two sureties each – Conditions imposed to prevent interference with trial or witnesses [Paras 84–86].

Company Law – Misfeasance proceedings under Section 542 of Companies Act – Non-executive nominee directors’ application for deletion at threshold rejected – Interim freezing orders vacated – Matter to proceed to trial [Paras 29–41].

Company Law – Fraudulent Conduct – Section 542 of Companies Act, 1956 – Interim Relief Partially Granted – Non-executive nominee directors Srinivasan and Sreenivasulu sought to strike out their names from misfeasance proceedings, alleging lack of specific pleadings and no evidence of fraudulent participation – Held: Though pleadings lack specificity, presence in board meetings and fiduciary obligations as directors justify trial – Relief under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Order I Rule 10 CPC declined [Paras 29–32, 38–39].

Nominee Directors – Fiduciary Liability – Directors Cannot Evade Corporate Responsibility – Court held that nominee directors, though non-executive, fall within ambit of persons "knowingly party" under Section 542 and cannot escape scrutiny solely on designation – Absence of express allegations insufficient for rejection at threshold [Paras 20–24, 36–38].

Pleadings in Fraud Cases – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Liberal Approach for Official Liquidator Permitted – Court acknowledged limitations on Official Liquidator's access to internal records and granted permission to file additional affidavit with specific allegations before trial – Leave granted to applicants to reapply for deletion if no evidence is brought during trial [Paras 30–31, 39].

Interim Orders – Freezing of Assets – Interim Orders Vacated – Considering hardship to applicants and lack of prima facie evidence, the Court vacated prior ex parte orders freezing their bank/demat accounts and restraining them from dealing with movable/immovable assets – Balance of convenience not in favour of continuation [Para 40].

Final Decision – Applications Partly Allowed – Interim freezing orders vacated – Misfeasance proceedings to continue – Official Liquidator permitted to amend pleadings with specific charges; applicants allowed to reapply for deletion after evidence stage [Para 41].

Parole – General Parole – Purpose and Eligibility – Petitioner-mother sought general parole for convict son to supervise renovation of home – Convict undergoing 10-year sentence under POCSO and IPC Section 376(2)(i) – Court held that construction/repair of home is a valid ground for parole under Regulation 636(v) – Requisite period of incarceration completed – Conduct in prison not disputed – Rejection by authorities based solely on past conviction held unjustified – Held: Parole granted for 30 days [Paras 1–2, 6–7, 15, 17]

Parole Procedure – Police Report – Report from District Superintendent of Police failed to examine risk factors like potential harm to victim or witnesses – Merely stated past conviction – Court held that parole by its nature applies to convicted persons and perfunctory reports cannot form valid basis for rejection – Held: Police report rejected – Direction issued to authorities to design structured and meaningful report formats [Paras 9–11, 16–17]

Administrative Law – Delay and Non-Consideration – Court observed repeated failure of Director General of Prisons to decide parole applications despite being final authority under Manual – Applications often rejected without reasons, based only on unsubstantiated police reports – Held: Practice contrary to law – Court recommends reforms, including digitisation of parole system, mandatory dashboards, and training of officials [Paras 13–16]

Right to Parole – Not a Right but a Correctional Concession – Court reiterated parole is a concession, not a right – Yet once grounds are valid and conditions met, refusal must be based on cogent reasons – Advised Director General of Police (Police IT) to submit proposal for complete e-enablement of parole processing under the 2021 Manual [Paras 4–5, 16]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Chief Superintendent directed to release convict Srinivasa (CTP No.01440) on general parole for 30 days from 18.10.2025 – Petitioner to comply with conditions including weekly reporting at jurisdictional police station – Authorities to impose necessary conditions to ensure return and prevent re-offending – Registry to communicate operative part for immediate execution.

Service Law – Transfer – Panchayat Secretaries – Effect of District Bifurcation – Appellants transferred outside their preferred native district after bifurcation of Y.S.R. Kadapa District into Kadapa and Annamayya – Petitioners contended that transfer orders issued by the District Collector failed to consider online counselling options and contravened G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 12.06.2025 – Held: District Collector of the erstwhile district alone is competent to effect transfers post-bifurcation – Purpose of centralized counselling was to ensure fair accommodation based on preferences – Transfer orders found contrary to policy intent – Single Judge’s dismissal of writ petition set aside [Paras 3, 7–9]

Administrative Law – Non-Consideration of Transfer Preferences – State failed to explain why petitioners’ submitted preferences were disregarded during counselling – Respondents’ justification based solely on general reference to G.O.Ms.No.5 held insufficient – Division Bench held that government failed to act in conformity with its own policy – Directed reconsideration of preferences within 3 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Single Judge dated 23.07.2025 set aside – District Collector of erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa District directed to re-consider transfer options submitted by petitioners and accommodate them within Y.S.R. Kadapa District – Exercise to be completed within 3 weeks [Paras 11–12]

Writ - Service Law - Disability Rights – Functional Requirements – Visually Impaired Candidates – Rejection of Appointment – Reasonable Accommodation – Posts identified as suitable for blind candidates under Section 33 of the RPWD Act – Petitioners (visually impaired) were selected through examination for post of Junior Executive (Law), Common Cadre and Finance – AAI rejected appointments citing failure to meet the functional requirement of “seeing” as per DEPWD Notification and advertisement – Held: Once a post is identified as suitable for blind candidates, rejection solely on basis of inability to "see" without assistive devices violates reasonable accommodation and rights under the RPWD Act – Assessment must account for aids, assistive technologies, and enabling atmosphere – Functional assessment cannot be purely clinical or medical [Paras 12.1–14.12].

Constitutional Law – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Supreme Court guidance in In re Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services applied – Held: Eligibility must be assessed through inclusive lens considering assistive support and reasonable accommodation – Rejection on basis of medical report without providing such support is impermissible – Right against disability-based discrimination equated with fundamental rights – Recruitment authorities must aim for inclusion, not exclusion [Paras 14.5–14.10, 15.6–15.7].

Administrative Law – Estoppel – Participation in Selection Process – Petitioners participated with awareness of functional requirement of “seeing” – Held: Estoppel not applicable where challenge is based on illegality, constitutional violations or infringement of statutory rights – Participation does not bar enforcement of rights under RPWD Act [Paras 15.1–15.7].

Judicial Review – Functional Requirements in Recruitment – Functional requirements prescribed in DEPWD notification held valid – But rejection based on failure to “see” without aids when post identified for blind candidates is illegal – Medical test cannot override statutory identification of posts [Paras 12.13–12.16, 14.12].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Rejection of candidatures set aside – Functional suitability to be reassessed with assistive technology, inclusive atmosphere, and in compliance with SC judgment – Appointments to be offered if found suitable – Challenge to Note 8 in DEPWD Notification rejected [Paras 19–20].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].