Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Unmarried Woman – Right to Reproductive Choice – Petitioner, a 26-year-old unmarried woman with pregnancy of 22 weeks, sought permission for termination and challenged exclusion of unmarried women from Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules – Contention that exclusion violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by denying autonomy, dignity, and mental health protection [Paras 1–3].

Constitutional Challenge – Section 3(2)(b) MTP Act and Rule 3-B MTP Rules – Allegation that statutory scheme permitted termination up to 24 weeks only for specified categories of women, excluding unmarried/single women – Categories under Rule 3-B enumerated – Exclusion alleged to be arbitrary and discriminatory [Paras 2–3].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Judgment – Reliance placed on X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Supreme Court held that unmarried and single women are entitled to termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks – Narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B held discriminatory and violative of Article 14 – Reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 recognised equally for unmarried women [Paras 4–6].

Interpretation of Subordinate Legislation – Purposive Interpretation – Held that Rule 3-B must be interpreted consistently with the object of the parent Act – Categories under Rule 3-B share a common thread of change in material circumstances affecting physical or mental health – No rationale to exclude unmarried women facing similar circumstances [Paras 5–6].

Constitutional Validity – No Need for Adjudication – In view of authoritative pronouncement of Supreme Court giving purposive interpretation to Rule 3-B, High Court held that challenge to constitutional validity need not be adjudicated – Issue raised by petitioner stands concluded [Para 7].

Article 144 Constitution of India – Duty to Act in Aid of Supreme Court – All authorities implementing MTP Act and Rules bound by Supreme Court judgment – Direction issued to State of Maharashtra to give wide circulation of Supreme Court decision to ensure uniform implementation and avoid unnecessary litigation [Para 7].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Permission for termination already granted earlier – In light of Supreme Court ruling, no further relief required – Request for dissemination of law accepted [Para 7].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 & Section 141 – Quashing of Summoning Order – Parallel Remedies – Forum Shopping – Petitioners challenged summoning orders by invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court while having already filed criminal revision before Sessions Court – Suppression of pendency of revision held to lack bona fides – Law reiterated that parallel remedies for same relief cannot be pursued simultaneously – Inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) to be exercised sparingly – Quashing at threshold not warranted where revision remedy invoked [Paras 27–31].

Company Liability – Dishonour of Cheque – Dropping of Signatory Director – Continuation of Proceedings against Company and Other Directors – Signatory director dropped as accused due to resignation prior to presentation of cheque – Held: Primary liability under Section 138 is of the company as “drawer” – Company is principal offender and directors are vicariously liable – Absence or dropping of signatory does not ipso facto absolve company or continuing directors – Liability under Section 138 is composite and culminates on failure to pay after statutory notice [Paras 42–50].

Vicarious Liability of Directors – Section 141 NI Act – Sufficiency of Averments at Summoning Stage – Managing Director and Director/CFO sought quashing on ground of absence of specific role attribution – Complaints contained averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business – Managing Director being signatory to Facility Agreement and personal guarantee deemed ex officio in charge – CFO/Director prima facie responsible for financial decisions in multi-crore loan transaction – Held: At summoning stage, detailed role-play not required if basic statutory foundation laid [Paras 32–41].

Dishonour of Cheque – “Signature Differs” / Violation of Bank Mandate – Effect – Defence that cheques required joint signatures and were void ab initio rejected at threshold – Bank mandate is internal arrangement between company and bank – Third party holder in due course protected – Reliance placed on Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat – Dishonour due to signature mismatch or want of mandate attracts Section 138 – Such defence held to be triable issue [Paras 59–65].

Fraud by Director – Alleged Siphoning of Loan Amount – Effect on Liability under NI Act – Petitioners contended loan amount siphoned off by erstwhile CEO through fraudulent bank account – Held: Internal fraud or mismanagement by director does not extinguish company’s liability towards lender – Defence falls within proviso to Section 141 and requires evidence – “Mastermind theory” cannot be examined in quashing proceedings [Paras 52–54, 75–76].

Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Security Cheques – Facility Agreement, addendum and guarantees established prima facie debt – Presumption of legally enforceable liability operates in favour of complainant – Claim that cheques were security cheques or that company did not benefit from loan held to be factual defence – Security cheque covered under Section 138 if debt subsists on date of presentation – Matters to be tested at trial [Paras 66–72].

Scope of Quashing under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or evaluate disputed facts at summoning stage – Where allegations disclose prima facie offence and defences are factual, proceedings should not be quashed – Summoning orders upheld – Petitions dismissed [Paras 55–58, 73–78].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – Summoning Orders dated 04.01.2025 upheld – Observations prima facie and not to affect trial or pending revision proceedings.

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order – Defamation by Media Telecast – Applicants, Editor, Reporter and Anchor of News18 Punjab, sought quashing of summoning order in complaint alleging defamatory news telecast against an IPS officer – Allegation that applicants projected complainant as receiving illegal money from criminals – Magistrate issued summons after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Matter requires adjudication during trial [Paras 1–3, 24–28].

Defamation – Media Trial – Applicability of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC – Applicants contended that telecast was fair reporting and protected by exceptions under Section 499 IPC – Held: Benefit of exceptions to defamation is a matter of defence and cannot be examined at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–12, 26].

Summoning Order – Scope of Interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate considered inquiry report, statements of complainant and witnesses, and relevant materials before issuing summons – Held: When prima facie case is disclosed and due application of mind is evident, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle prosecution [Paras 23–27].

Parity with Co-Accused – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Similar quashing order in favour of another news channel set aside by Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.14790 of 2023 – Supreme Court held that Magistrate had considered inquiry report and relevant material and discretionary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted – Held: Present case stands on same footing and applicants not entitled to quashing [Paras 18–23].

Principles Governing Quashing – No Mini Trial – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure, Aryan Singh, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao – Held: While considering quashing, Court must proceed on allegations in complaint as they stand and cannot assess reliability or truthfulness of allegations [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Application dismissed – Summoning order dated 12.12.2018 and criminal proceedings to continue – No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – No order as to costs.

Preventive Detention – Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Snapping of Live and Proximate Link – Detention Order Vitiated – Detention order passed nearly one year after last alleged prejudicial activity – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Preventive detention requires proximity between alleged activities and detention order – Undue delay snaps live link and vitiates detention [Paras 8–9, 11].

Preventive Detention – FIR Forming Substratum of Detention Closed as ‘Not Admitted’ – Effect – FIR No. 202/2024 Closed and Closure Accepted by Magistrate – Primary Basis of Detention Order Removed – Held: Once the foundational FIR collapses, detention order cannot survive on stale or antecedent FIRs alone [Paras 7–8, 11].

Preventive Detention – Reliance on Previous FIRs and DDRs – Criminal Antecedents v. Public Order – Mere Criminal History Insufficient – Earlier FIRs lacking proximity and immediacy – DDRs only reflective of past conduct – Held: Preventive detention cannot be sustained merely on criminal history without imminent threat to public order [Paras 7–9].

Preventive Detention – Grant of Bail in Criminal Case – Impact – Detenu enlarged on bail long prior to detention – Authorities did not consider detention necessary at relevant time – Subsequent detention based on same allegations impermissible [Paras 8–9].

Judicial Review – Failure of Writ Court to Consider Vital Legal Issues – Appellate Interference Justified – Learned Writ Court failed to examine delay and closure of FIR – Judgment set aside [Paras 10–11].

Reliance on Precedent – Delay in Preventive Detention – Supreme Court Principle Reiterated – Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 233 followed – Absence of explanation for delay fatal to detention [Para 9].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed in HCP No. 75/2025 set aside – Detention Order No. PSA/157 dated 20.05.2025 quashed – Detenu directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Scope and Limits – Power under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is drastic and must be exercised strictly on the basis of averments in the plaint alone – Written statement, defence pleas, and disputed facts cannot be considered – If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit is not ex facie barred by law, rejection at the threshold is impermissible [Paras 14–15, 18].

Benami Transactions – Section 4, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 – Maintainability of Suit – Suit filed after enforcement of the Act alleging purchase of property in name of close relatives with consideration paid by plaintiff – Whether transaction is benami and whether it falls within statutory exceptions under Sections 2(8) and 2(9) of the Act involves adjudication on evidence – Section 4 bar cannot be mechanically applied at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 16–19].

Benami Property – Retrospectivity – Pre-1988 Transactions – Transactions alleged to have taken place prior to enforcement of the Act – Though suit instituted after commencement of the Act, determination whether transaction is hit by Section 4 depends on proof of benami nature and applicability of exceptions – Such determination cannot be undertaken without trial [Paras 10.iii, 16–17].

Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Benami Nature, Possession and Consideration – Pleas regarding payment of consideration, long and continuous possession, construction over land, custody of title deeds and cause of action are disputed factual issues – These require evidence and cannot be adjudicated summarily while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 17–19].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Question of limitation dependent on date of knowledge and accrual of cause of action – Limitation cannot be decided at threshold when it requires examination of evidence – Suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on such ground [Para 20].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Meaningful Reading of Plaint – Court must read the plaint as a whole and assume averments to be true at that stage – If plaint discloses a cause of action, suit must proceed to trial – Correctness or falsity of averments is irrelevant at threshold stage [Paras 14–15, 18].

Trial Court Error – Premature Adjudication on Merits – Trial Court erred in rejecting plaint by conclusively applying Section 4 of the Act without trial – Determination of benami nature and statutory bar requires full adjudication – Rejection of plaint amounted to premature determination of disputed issues [Paras 16–18, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012 rejecting the plaint set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC dismissed – Title Suit No. 196 of 2011 restored to file – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial uninfluenced by observations in appeal [Paras 21–22].

Tender Law – Blacklisting / Debarment – Perpetual disqualification clause – Constitutionality – Clause in municipal tender barring participation of any bidder who had ever been blacklisted or debarred by any authority – Clause providing that revocation of blacklisting would not be recognised – Held: Use of expression “ever blacklisted or debarred” amounts to permanent and perpetual disqualification – Such clause creates a civil death for contractors and service providers – Violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India [Paras 8, 13–15].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to trade and business – Proportionality – Blacklisting affects the right to livelihood and to enter into contractual relations with the State – Perennial or indefinite debarment impermissible – Test of proportionality to be applied – Permanent exclusion from tender process held unconstitutional and arbitrary [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Blacklisting – Nature and scope – Limits on executive power – Blacklisting recognised as a legitimate tool to ensure discipline and eliminate defaulting contractors – However, it cannot be used as a punitive measure resulting in lifelong exclusion – Even a one-day blacklisting resulting in permanent ineligibility held unreasonable and excessive [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Review of Tender Conditions – Scope – Courts can interfere where tender conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory or infringe fundamental rights – Clause 15 of the impugned tender found to be contrary to settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts – Tender quashed on constitutional grounds [Paras 6, 15–16].

Precedent – Perpetual blacklisting – Disapproved – Reliance placed on State of Odisha v. Panda Infraproject Limited – Supreme Court held that indefinite blacklisting amounts to civil death and restricted debarment to a fixed period – Followed by Orissa High Court in Artatran Bhuyan v. State of Odisha – Same principle applied to tender eligibility clause [Paras 10–12].

Public Tender – Consequential directions – Entire tender set aside due to unconstitutional eligibility condition – Liberty granted to Balasore Municipality to issue a fresh tender consistent with constitutional principles – Direction to float fresh tender within 15 days [Para 16].

Academic Issues – Non-adjudication – Other challenges raised to the tender held to be academic in view of quashing of tender itself – No findings recorded on ancillary grounds [Paras 17–18].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – Impugned tender quashed and set aside – Balasore Municipality directed to issue a fresh tender within fifteen (15) days in accordance with law and constitutional principles.

Service Law – Recruitment – Reservation for Ex-Servicemen – Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation – Illegality in Applying Vertical Reservation – Recruitment notice dated 19.02.2014 issued by MCL for 303 posts of Security Guard – 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen applied as a separate vertical category – Cut-off marks for ESM-General fixed substantially lower than General category – Resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% – Held: Reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and must operate horizontally cutting across vertical categories – Application of ESM reservation as vertical held contrary to constitutional principles and settled law [Paras 2, 4, 7, 11].

Reservation Law – Horizontal Reservation – Principles Reiterated – Horizontal reservation intended to be interlocking in nature and to be adjusted within respective vertical categories without disturbing overall reservation percentages – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent judgments – Held: ESM candidates must be adjusted against their respective social categories unless selected on merit in open category [Paras 7–11].

Selection Process – Participation Without Protest – Estoppel – Not Applicable in Case of Patent Illegality – Appellants contended that writ petitioners participated in selection with knowledge of ESM reservation – Held: Participation does not bar challenge when selection process itself is contrary to constitutional mandate and statutory rules – Illegality in reservation structure goes to the root of the matter [Paras 3–4, 7].

Relief – Protection of Appointed Ex-Servicemen – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Long lapse of time and continued service of appointed ESM candidates considered – Held: Appointments of ESM candidates already appointed should not be disturbed – Directions of Single Bench to regularize such appointments by creating supernumerary posts upheld – Writ petitioners to be considered afresh against available vacancies and granted seniority over supernumerary appointees [Paras 4–6, 12–13].

Judicial Review – No Interference in Well-Reasoned Single Bench Judgment – Appellants conceded error in applying vertical reservation to Ex-Servicemen – No infirmity or illegality found in directions issued by Single Bench – Appeals found devoid of merit – Writ appeals dismissed [Paras 5, 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Single Bench dated 17.12.2024 upheld – Directions for fresh consideration of writ petitioners and protection of Ex-Servicemen appointments affirmed – No costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Doctrine of Election – Section 167 Motor Vehicles Act – Bar against Dual Remedies – Claimants initially filed claim petitions before MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and received compensation pursuant to awards passed by MACT – Thereafter, claimants again approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the same accidents – Held: Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates an election of remedies – Claimant may opt either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act but not under both – Subsequent claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after availing remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable [Paras 9–11, 18].

Doctrine of Election – Estoppel by Conduct – Abuse of Process of Law – Once a claimant consciously chooses one statutory forum and receives compensation, he is estopped from invoking another forum for the same cause of action – Courts cannot be treated as bargaining forums for enhanced compensation – Successive claims amount to abuse of the process of law [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Employer Liability vs. Vehicle Liability – Distinction Rejected – Argument that MACT claim was against offending vehicle and WCC claim against employer rejected – Held: Nature of liability does not dilute statutory bar under Section 167 – Identity of accident and cause of action is determinative [Paras 5, 17].

Adjustment of Compensation – Impermissibility – Submission that compensation awarded by MACT could be adjusted against compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act rejected – Held: Law does not permit adjustment when the second claim itself is barred – Claimant cannot pursue parallel remedies sequentially [Paras 5, 17].

Precedents – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Judgments – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bidami – Coordinate Bench judgment permitting dual compensation stood set aside by Supreme Court – Held: Law is settled that double compensation under both enactments is impermissible [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners quashed and set aside – Claim petitions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act held not maintainable – Claimants directed to refund compensation amounts received with usual interest – All connected applications disposed of.

Labour Law - Employees’ Provident Fund – Scope of “Basic Wages” – Section 2(b) and Section 6 of the EPF Act – Principle of universality – Emoluments payable universally and ordinarily to all employees alone constitute basic wages – Allowances not earned by all employees or not paid by all establishments stand excluded unless specifically included by statute [Paras 12–17].

Special Allowance – Provident Fund Contribution – Special allowance paid at discretion of employer, not uniformly to all employees, varying by designation and not linked to cost of living – Tribunal failed to examine whether special allowance could be equated with dearness allowance – Held: Appellate Tribunal ignored binding principles laid down in Bridge & Roofs and Vivekananda Vidyamandir – Order suffers from patent illegality [Paras 18].

Tea/Canteen Allowance – Cash Value of Food Concession – Explanation 1 to Section 6 – Cash value of food concession deemed part of dearness allowance only if linked to rise in cost of living and satisfies test of universality – Allowance payable to a defined class of workmen and subject to withdrawal on provision of canteen facility – Not universally payable – Held: Tribunal erred in including tea/canteen allowance for PF contribution without proper legal analysis [Paras 19–22].

Overtime / Extra Wages – Section 2(b) EPF Act – Statutory exclusion – Overtime wages earned only by employees who work beyond scheduled hours and not by all employees – Respondent authority under Section 7A had excluded overtime wages – No appeal by Department against such finding – Held: Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to include overtime/extra wages in absence of departmental appeal [Paras 23].

Appellate Adjudication – Duty to Pass Reasoned Order – Appellate Tribunal passed cryptic order without considering settled law or contentions raised by petitioner – Failure to apply binding precedents of Supreme Court – Order set aside [Paras 18, 24].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Orders dated 24.12.2007 and 01.09.2011 set aside – Matter remanded to EPF Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law – Mandamus issued to decide matter within four months considering prolonged pendency since 2011 [Paras 24–26].