Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order and Charge Sheet – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order and charge sheet challenged on grounds of hasty and tainted investigation – Alleged offense of passing obscene comments against women – Absence of independent witnesses or examination of affected females – Violation of mandatory provisions under Cr.P.C. during investigation – Application allowed, summoning order and charge sheet quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Investigation Irregularities – Analysis – Held – Investigation conducted in haste without due process – No independent witnesses or statements of females affected by the alleged comments – Violation of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. – Summoning order issued without proper application of judicial mind. [Paras 3-16, 18-20, 27-30]

Role of Accused – Facts and Circumstances – Applicant, a bright student with no prior criminal record – Arrest and implication found to be arbitrary and without substantial evidence – False implication and tainted investigation leading to miscarriage of justice. [Paras 11-14, 20, 29]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Summoning order dated 30.01.2024 and charge sheet dated 24.12.2023 quashed – Entire proceedings against the applicant in Criminal Case No. 141/2024 set aside – Directions for compliance issued to trial court. [Paras 30-34]

Civil Procedure - Appointment of Receiver - Appeal against trial court order allowing application under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. – Trust created by will deed dated 25.02.1925 - Dispute over the nature of trust as public or private - Trial court appointed receiver due to mismanagement and misappropriation of trust funds by appellant – Held, no urgency or adequate reasoning provided by trial court for appointing receiver - Trust declared as public religious trust by trial court and appellant’s claim of it being a private trust rejected - Appeal dismissed, trial court's decision upheld. [Paras 1-17]

Trust Law - Nature of Trust - Analysis - Held - Trust created by late Jai Narain through will deed dated 25.02.1925 is a public religious trust - Trustees appointed by original creator deceased - Subsequent management by appellant and others misused trust funds - Trust income utilized for personal use by appellant - No proper account maintained - Trial court’s finding of public trust status affirmed. [Paras 6-10, 16]

Civil Procedure - Competency to File Application for Receiver - Analysis - Held - Application under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. can be filed by any party interested in proper management of trust property - Defendant no. 5’s application valid despite not being transposed as plaintiff - Court can appoint receiver if just and convenient, even at instance of stranger. [Para 14]

Decision - Appointment of Receiver - Court upholds trial court's decision to appoint receiver due to mismanagement by appellant - Appeal dismissed, ensuring protection and proper administration of trust property. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction – Eyewitness Reliability – Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 392 IPC – Prosecution's case primarily based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, PW-1 – Trial court acquitted one accused (Mahendra Kumar Kaushik) based on disbelieving part of the testimony of PW-1 regarding the alleged conspiracy – High Court found significant inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the testimony of PW-1 – Evidence suggested that PW-1 and his father were not present at the crime scene – Held, conviction based on unreliable and contradictory testimony is unsustainable. [Paras 43-54]

Forensic Evidence – Non-corroboration – Lack of ballistic and forensic evidence to support the prosecution's case – No recovery of alleged murder weapon or looted rifle – Destruction of case property including the car allegedly used by the accused – High Court noted the absence of forensic examination of crucial evidence – Held, absence of corroborative forensic evidence further weakens the prosecution's case. [Paras 43(n)-(o)]

Ante-timing of FIR – Discrepancies in FIR timing and inquest report – Evidence suggested that sections of IPC were added later to the inquest report – Delay in sending special report to Magistrate unexplained – High Court found FIR was likely ante-timed – Held, this raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. [Paras 50-54]

Motive – Lack of Evidence – Trial court acquitted accused of conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC – Prosecution failed to establish motive for the crime – High Court upheld the trial court's finding on the absence of motive – Held, absence of motive adds to the doubt regarding the prosecution's case. [Paras 42-43]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentencing set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Direction for the release of appellants in custody if not required in any other case. [Paras 54-55]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the conduct of ‘Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra’ on 01.06.2024, challenging the rejection by the 5^th respondent on grounds of lack of authority and arbitrariness – Court held that the Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Circle, was not the competent authority to reject the permission – The rejection order was set aside and directions were issued to allow the procession with specific conditions to ensure public order and safety. [Paras 1-7]

Administrative Law – Competence of Authority – Validity of Orders – Held – The 5^th respondent, Inspector of Police, lacked the authority to reject the permission for the Shobhayatra – Such orders must be passed by the competent authority as per established protocols – Rejection order declared illegal and arbitrary. [Para 5]

Public Order – Conduct of Religious Processions – Held – While public authorities have the duty to maintain public order, they must ensure that statutory rights to conduct religious processions are not unduly curtailed – Directions issued for imposing necessary conditions to balance public order and the right to procession. [Para 6]

Decision – The writ petition was disposed of with directions to allow the Hanuman Jayanthi Shobhayatra on 01.06.2024 under stipulated conditions – The court provided a comprehensive list of conditions to ensure public order, safety, and adherence to the Model Code of Conduct due to the prevailing election period. [Para 7]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Right to Abortion – Psychological Health – Petitioner seeking to terminate a 25-week pregnancy citing grave psychological injury and social stigma – Medical Board’s report confirming the risk of psychological injury – Court’s recognition of the Petitioner’s right to reproductive autonomy and mental health considerations under Article 21 of the Constitution. Held: The Petitioner is granted permission for termination. [Paras 1-24]

Right to Privacy and Reproductive Choice – Consent of Pregnant Woman – Petitioner’s autonomous choice respected despite pregnancy arising from a consensual relationship – Court affirming that reproductive decisions belong solely to the pregnant individual, irrespective of the partner’s views. [Para 19]

Guidelines for Medical Termination – Compliance – Procedure for termination of pregnancy adhered to as per the Guidance Note issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – Medical Board’s thorough assessment confirming fitness for termination and understanding of risks by the Petitioner. [Paras 7-15]

Partition Suit - Error in Decree Description - The original suit filed by plaintiffs claimed a 2/3rd share of property purchased in 1981, depicted incorrectly as 0.08 decimal instead of 8 decimals in the suit schedule – Trial Court's decree mistakenly adhered to the incorrect description despite contrary evidence from purchase deed and commissioner's report – Application for rectification under Section 152 CPC by defendants granted, correcting land description to 8 decimals – Court emphasizes accidental omission and clerical error correction principles under Section 152 CPC - Proper representation of property dimensions deemed crucial for justice. [Paras 1-18]

Clerical Error - Section 152 CPC - High Court finds that the discrepancy in property description from 0.08 decimal to 8 decimals is a clerical error, an accidental omission not reflecting the court's intention - Amends decree to correct land measurement, aligning with evidence and original purchase deed - Reinforces judicial duty to ensure accuracy in court records to prevent prejudice [Para 14-18].

Decision: The High Court directed the Trial Court to correct the judgment and decree, stating the measurement of the suit property as 8 decimals instead of 0.08 decimal - The impugned order set aside - Court underscores the necessity of court records reflecting true intentions and accurate facts, correcting accidental slips or omissions under Section 152 CPC. [Paras 16-18]

Transplantation of Human Organs – Mandamus issued – Compliance with Authorisation Committee Procedures and Safeguarding Donors' Rights.

Transplantation of Human Organs – Writ petitions filed seeking mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations for kidney transplantation approval – Petitioners facing renal failure, with donors not being near relatives – Respondents hesitating to forward applications to Authorisation Committee due to fear of backlash in case of complications – Held, petitioners allowed to submit applications directly to Authorisation Committee, bypassing the need for hospital mediation – Authorisation Committee instructed to scrutinize applications and provide a decision within four weeks – Established that while commercial dealings in human organs are prohibited, altruistic donations should not be hindered by undue suspicion – Emphasis on the need for State Government to issue clear guidelines on application submission and donor protection – Judicial directions to ensure health and welfare provisions for donors post-transplantation, including medical insurance and financial support [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Evaluation – Court acknowledges the fears of medical professionals in forwarding transplant applications due to potential repercussions – Emphasizes the need for clear and structured guidelines from the State Government to streamline the application process – Recognizes the statutory duty of the Authorisation Committee to ensure no commercial transaction exists between donor and recipient and to verify the altruistic intent of donors – Highlights that burden of proof should not be disproportionately placed on applicants, and absence of commercial evidence should lead to approval of transplantation [Paras 6-8, 12-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions disposed of – Held – Petitioners permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee – Authorisation Committee mandated to process and decide on applications within a stipulated timeframe – Directions provided for ensuring donor welfare post-transplantation, including insurance and financial support measures – Emphasized the necessity of altruism in organ donation and the responsibility of Authorisation Committees to facilitate genuine donations without undue hurdles [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law - Bail Application under MCOCA - Bail Rejected – Application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA – FIR alleges involvement in organized crime syndicate led by Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Langarpuria – Applicant accused of multiple serious crimes including murder, extortion, and robbery – Court observes applicant’s key role in syndicate and prior criminal record – Held: Applicant poses flight risk, likelihood of committing further crimes, and prima facie case under MCOCA made out – Bail application dismissed – Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude within six months. [Paras 52-86]

Role of Accused in Organized Crime – Analysis – Court finds substantial evidence linking applicant to organized crime syndicate – Applicant’s involvement in serious offences substantiated by multiple FIRs and investigation reports – Previous conduct and risk of absconding considered. [Paras 64-66, 55]

Legal Standards for Bail under MCOCA – Held – Provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA require stringent scrutiny – Bail cannot be granted unless court is satisfied on twin grounds of no guilt and no likelihood of re-offending – Applicant fails to meet these criteria – Court balances societal interests against individual rights. [Paras 52-56]

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court finds no merit in the application for bail – Directs Trial Court to expedite trial and conclude within six months – Observations limited to bail application and not on merits of the case. [Paras 86-89]