Writ Law - Medical Termination of Pregnancy - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 226 - Minor rape victim - 15-year-old petitioner seeking termination of pregnancy at 26-28 weeks gestation - Petitioner victim of sexual assault - AIIMS Medical Board report confirming continuation of pregnancy likely to cause adverse psychological impact - Medical Board declared petitioner fit for procedure - State raising no objection to termination - MTP Act 1971 limiting termination to 24 weeks - Petitioner invoking Right to Life under Article 21 - Court observed that extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts can be invoked where statutory remedies are unavailable particularly in cases of rape and grave mental injury - Held - Right to make decisions concerning one's body is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy - Continuation of unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape causes grave trauma both mentally and physically - Termination of pregnancy allowed despite exceeding statutory limits - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Reproductive Autonomy - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Decisional Autonomy - Choice of pregnant woman over interest of unborn child - Court held that no court should compel a minor child to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will - Such compulsion disregards decisional autonomy and inflicts irreversible consequences - Reproductive choice is a fundamental right - Held - The woman herself is best placed to evaluate personal circumstances - Lack of statutory remedy under the MTP Act does not bar constitutional relief - Decisional autonomy and bodily integrity are integral facets of fundamental rights - [Paras 11.1-13].

Decision: Petition allowed - Petitioner permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at AIIMS New Delhi - AIIMS directed to preserve foetal tissue for DNA testing required for the registered criminal case - State (GNCTD) directed to bear all medical and post-operative expenses - Specific directions issued for neonatal care in case of live birth and subsequent adoption procedure - [Paras 14-16].

Criminal Law - Bail - Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 47 and 483 - Mandatory arrest procedure - Petitioner was taken into custody for allegedly opening fake business accounts and using mule bank accounts for illegal fund transfers - Application for bail was filed citing non-compliance with Section 47 of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution - Investigating Officer filed an affidavit asserting compliance but the court found no evidence that grounds of arrest were communicated in writing in a language the petitioner understands - Only a printed template signature was present on the arrest memo - Held - Section 47 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution makes it imperative for the Arresting Officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing - Following the ratio in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vrs State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500 written communication of grounds is a mandatory safeguard - Failure to comply with these statutory and constitutional provisions entitles the petitioner to bail - Bail granted on furnishing bond of Rs 50000 with two solvent sureties - [Paras 1-6].

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Article 22(1) - Communication of grounds of arrest - Arresting officer failed to provide the petitioner with written grounds of arrest in a language understood by him - Record indicated only a template signature on a memo without substantive written details - Held - The mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing is a constitutional protection that must be strictly followed - Non-compliance results in the grant of bail - [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs 50000 with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Writ Law - Service Matter - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Refixation of pay and increments - Petitioner appointed as Administrative Officer in Tea Research Association in 2007 - Confirmed in 2008 - Promoted to higher pay band in 2013 - Claimed two additional increments based on Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) communication dated 21.11.2008 and re-designation as Sr. Controller of Administration - During proceedings prayer for re-designation not pressed due to employment elsewhere - Claim for increments based on assertion that Tea Research Association adopted CSIR Rules and pay scales for Administrative Officers and Group IV Scientists were identical - Respondent Association contended administrative staff are governed by CCS Rules and CSIR benefit was cadre specific for scientists - Court perused 2008 communication and found it restricted to Group IV Scientists - Held - Identical pay scales cannot be the basis for conferring benefits meant for a specific professional category like Scientists upon administrative staff - Claim found fallacious - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-14].

Writ Law - Pay Parity - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Cadre Specific Benefits - Petitioner sought parity with Group IV Scientists for additional increments under 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations - Alleged discrimination vis-a-vis two other officers - Respondents denied discrimination stating those officers were granted salary via Chairman discretion and not under the 2008 communication - Court found communication dated 21.11.2008 was intended exclusively for the scientific cadre - Held - Parity in pay scales does not entitle an employee to specific cadre benefits or increments intended for a different professional class with distinct roles - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to cost.

Writ Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 - Regulation 2 - Competence of Issuing Authority - Appellant-Assistant Engineer challenged memo of charges issued by 3rd Respondent-Chief Engineer HRM - Claimed 7th Respondent-Deputy Chief Engineer was the designated disciplinary authority - Argued that initiation by higher authority deprived him of statutory appeal - Single Judge dismissed writ petition - Division Bench affirmed - Findings showed that under Regulation 23 an appeal lies to the Board against orders of immediate subordinates - Held - Contention that right of appeal is lost because a higher authority acted as the disciplinary authority is meritless when a further appeal to the Board remains available - [Paras 1-7].

Service Law - Deprivation of Appeal - Kerala State Electricity Board (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 - Regulation 23 - Applicability of Precedent - Appellant cited Surjit Ghosh v. United Commercial Bank (1995) 2 SCC 474 to argue that higher authorities cannot strip employees of appeal rights by exercising lower powers - Held - The precedent is distinguished where the regulations provide for a further appeal to a superior body like the Board - No prejudice is caused to the employee when an appellate forum still exists - [Paras 6-7].

Writ Law - Scope of Judicial Review - Electricity Act 2003 - Section 168 - Protection for Good Faith Actions - Charge memo alleged collusion with contractor and unauthorized removal of KSEB materials under guise of scrap removal - Appellant claimed protection under Section 168 for acts done as Assessing Authority - Held - Issues involve disputed questions of fact - High Court cannot adjudicate factual disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution - Since the document is merely a memo of charges - appellant has full opportunity to contest the allegations with evidence during departmental inquiry - [Paras 8].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Judgment of the Single Judge affirmed – No illegality found in the issuance of the memo of charges.

Writ Law - Preventive Detention - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Section 3 - Delay in execution of detention order - Challenge to detention order dated 20 March 2025 on ground of three-month delay as order was executed only on 25 June 2025 - Detenue was in judicial custody at Dum Dum Correctional Home during the intervening period - Petitioner relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik case to argue that unexplained delay snaps the live and proximate link - Respondents explained delay as administrative time required to obtain No Objection Certificates from various trial courts in West Bengal and the Home Department of Rajasthan for inter-state transfer to Jaipur Central Jail - Court found that respondents sufficiently explained the timeline necessitated by procedural requirements - Held - Delay not unreasonable and does not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority - [Paras 23-24].

Writ Law - Procedural Safeguards - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Language of communication - Petitioner contended that detention reference was provided in English while detenue only understood Bengali - Record produced by State showed detenue had authored a letter in Hindi language - Advisory Board records confirmed detenue was produced and examined in person on two dates - Held - Contention regarding language barrier is factually incorrect and no illegality found in Advisory Board proceedings - [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law - Narcotic Offenses - PITNDPS Act 1988 - Section 3 - Grounds of detention - Detenue implicated in multiple cases involving smuggling of Phensedyl and Charas and Gold to Bangladesh - Financial investigation revealed ownership of shell companies in name of family members to legitimize illicit proceeds - Properties worth 5.05 crores frozen by authorities - Sponsoring authority proposed detention in geographically distant state to effectively disrupt the supply chain and communication network operational in the Eastern Region - Held - Detention order justified based on propensity of detenue to engage in illicit trafficking and need to disrupt operational networks - [Paras 14-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Detention order dated 20/03/2025 upheld.

Writ Law - Termination of Law Officers - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226 - Orissa Law Officers Rules 1971 - Rule 6 - Petitioners were appointed as Law Officers for Ganjam district vide notification dated 08.01.2024 - State Government subsequently amended Rule 6 on 05.08.2025 empowering the government to terminate any law officer before the expiry of the three-year tenure - Impugned notifications dated 24.12.2025 terminated petitioners with immediate effect and appointed a fresh set of Law Officers - Petitioners alleged violation of natural justice and arbitrariness due to lack of show-cause notice and fixed tenure - State contended that appointments were explicitly until further orders and the amended Rule 6 permitted such termination - Court found that the appointment order clearly stipulated that engagement was until further orders and was subject to the State's discretionary direction - Held - Petitioners have no vested right to continue for the full term of three years when the appointment is conditional and Rule 6 allows termination before expiry of tenure - [Paras 1-6.7].

Writ Law - Nature of Professional Engagement - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Orissa Law Officers Rules 1971 - Advocate-Client Relationship - Court examined the status of Law Officers vis-a-vis statutory public offices - Relying on Johri Mal and Rakesh Kumar Keshari judgments the Court observed that the engagement of Government Counsel is primarily a matter of trust and confidence between the State and its chosen advocate - Court noted that Rule 34 vests administrative control with the District Collector but the rules are procedural and do not confer statutory status under Article 309 - Held - A Law Officer does not hold a statutory public office and the relationship is purely that of advocate and client arising out of professional engagement - State is entitled to select its own counsel and no formal notice is required prior to termination - [Paras 4.8-6.6].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No interference with the termination and fresh appointment of Law Officers found necessary.

Civil Law - Court Fees - Commercial Courts Act 2015 - Section 12A - Rejection of Plaint - CPC Order VII Rule 11(d) - Refund of Court Fees - Applicant filed money suit without exhausting mandatory pre-institution mediation - Plaint rejected by Commercial Court under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for non-compliance with Section 12A - Rejection upheld by High Court Division Bench following Patil Automation - Applicant sought modification of High Court order to allow refund of court fees for filing fresh suit - Court analyzed relationship between Patil Automation and earlier SC decision in Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar - Noted that Patil Automation did not consider refund of court fees where proceedings fail on technical grounds - Held - Patil Automation is per incuriam only on the limited aspect of court fee forfeiture - Rejection for failure to undergo mediation is a procedural defect and not an adjudication on merits - Retaining court fees would operate oppressively as it would compel the litigant to pay twice for the same lis - Application allowed directing refund of court fees within three weeks - [Paras 1-36].

Civil Law - Doctrine of Precedent - Constitution of India - Article 141 - Per Incuriam - Binding Nature of Precedents - Bench noted that a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in ignorance of an earlier coordinate or binding precedent on the same point lacks precedential force to that extent - Patil Automation did not notice the earlier principle in Dr. (Col.) Subhash Chandra Talwar regarding refund of fees when a proceeding fails for technical or procedural reasons - Held - Observations in Patil Automation if construed to imply automatic forfeiture of court fees would run contrary to Talwar case - Decision in Patil Automation deemed per incuriam on the ancillary issue of retention of court fees - [Paras 14-19].

Civil Law - Refund of Court Fees - West Bengal Court Fees Act 1970 - Sections 18, 19 and 20(1) - Equity and Procedural Justice - Court fee is a consideration for a cause and where no valid suit exists in the eyes of law the retention of fee is contrary to the object of facilitating dispute resolution - Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) terminates a defective proceeding but does not extinguish the cause of action as per Order VII Rule 13 CPC - Held - Litigant ought not to suffer automatic forfeiture of court fee for a curable procedural defect - Principles analogous to Sections 18, 19 and 20(1) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act justify refund to prevent financial prejudice - [Paras 29-35].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant held entitled to refund of court fees paid at the time of institution of the earlier suit before the Commercial Court – Competent authority directed to take necessary steps for refund within three weeks.

Writ Law - Nursing Admission - Indian Nursing Council Regulations - Minimum Qualifying Criteria - Registration Refusal - Petitioner Institute and thirty students challenged the decision of West Bengal University of Health Sciences (WBUHS) refusing to register students for the 2025-2026 B.Sc. Nursing session - Petitioners contended that the State Government notification dated 17.12.2025 relaxed the admission criteria to allow candidates with a JENPAS-UG 2025 rank to fill vacant seats - Indian Nursing Council (INC) and WBUHS argued that the minimum qualifying criteria of 50th percentile for General category and 40th-45th for reserved categories remained mandatory - Court observed that while a relaxation was granted by INC for the 2024-2025 session it was not extended to the 2025-2026 session - Court found that the students failed to meet the minimum percentile prescribed by the expert body - Held - Eligibility criteria prescribed by an expert body like the INC must be strictly adhered to and any dilution would cause injustice to other candidates - Mere admission by an institute and attendance of classes does not create a legal right for registration if the candidate is fundamentally ineligible - Prayer for interim relief to allow students to appear for examinations rejected - [Paras 1-34].

Writ Law - Role of Expert Bodies - Judicial Review - Discretionary Power - The Court held that it is for the expert body to decide whether any relaxation in eligibility criteria is warranted - The High Court cannot direct an expert authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner - Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that academic standards should not be diluted on sympathetic considerations - Held - An ineligible candidate cannot be made eligible by judicial directions to the Government to relax rules - [Paras 24-31].

Writ Law - Ratio Decidendi - Strict Adherence to Academic Standards - The Court reaffirmed the principle that when eligibility criteria are prescribed for professional courses they must be strictly followed without tampering or dilution - Facts of the case distinguished from previous interim orders where no allegation of non-fulfillment of criteria existed - Held - Eligibility criteria for admission must be strictly adhered to and no interim relief can be granted to ineligible candidates - [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Prayer for interim order rejected – Respondents directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks – Liberty granted to mention for hearing after exchange of affidavits.

Writ Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Petitioner sought to restrain Respondents from obstructing the laying of remaining 200 meters of a 14 km underground HT cable stretch - Lower courts rejected temporary injunction finding no prima facie case regarding the existence of a public road and citing alternative remedies - High Court found the lower courts ignored the Court Commissioner report of the Executive Engineer which explicitly identified the existence of Other District Road No. 61 - Held - The findings of the lower courts were ex-facie perverse and based on irrelevant considerations such as lack of PWD permission which the road authorities had already granted - High Court is duty bound to interfere under Article 227 where the sub-ordinate court exercise of discretion is totally perverse or suffers from patent illegality - [Paras 21-31].

Civil Law - Statutory Power to Lay Lines - Indian Telegraph Act 1885 - Sections 10 and 16 - Right of Licensee - Respondents obstructed cable laying work on a road margin claiming proprietary rights - Held - The statutory scheme under the Telegraph Act and Electricity Act empowers the licensee to place and maintain lines even through private property subject only to the liability of paying compensation - Unobstructed access to lay electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest and for economic growth - The right of a landowner is limited to claiming compensation and not to impede essential infrastructure work - [Paras 32-38].

Civil Law - Alternative Remedy - Works of Licensees Rules 2006 - Rule 3 - Temporary Injunction - Trial court held Plaintiff had an efficacious alternative remedy by approaching the District Magistrate under Rule 3 - Held - The proviso to Rule 3(1) applies where ownership or occupation of the land is undisputed or indisputable - Where a prima facie case exists that the work is on a public road margin and there is no evidence of Respondent ownership over that stretch the bar of alternative remedy is not attracted - Injunction cannot be declined solely on the availability of a remedy that applies to different factual circumstances - [Paras 39-40].

Civil Law - Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Petitioner completed 99 percent of the work over 13.8 km - Obstruction was for a short stretch of 200 meters - Held - Refusal to grant injunction would render the entire 13.8 km exercise nugatory causing irreparable loss to the Petitioner - Conversely the underground cable using horizontal directional drilling would cause no irretrievable damage to the land or restrict surface use - Balance of convenience tilts heavily in favor of the Petitioner - [Paras 41-47].

Civil Law - Interim Relief Amounting to Final Relief - Mandatory Injunction - Grant of relief at interim stage - Held - While courts ordinarily refrain from granting interim relief that amounts to final relief it is not an immutable rule - In rare and exceptional cases where a very strong prima facie case exists and withholding relief would prick the conscience of the court or result in extreme hardship such relief can be granted - To balance equities the Petitioner is directed to deposit security for potential compensation - [Paras 48-54].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the District Court and Civil Judge quashed – Temporary injunction granted – Petitioner permitted to complete cable work using HDD method – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 as security before the trial court.