Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Proof of Will – Plaintiff claimed title on basis of registered Will dated 28.03.1990 allegedly executed by testatrix Anasuyamma – Evidence of attesting witnesses contained serious inconsistencies regarding execution, presence of witnesses and circumstances of registration – Testatrix in earlier litigation failed to mention such Will though examined as witness – Held: Registered Will surrounded by several suspicious circumstances and not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act – Plaintiff failed to establish title to the suit property [Paras 21–24, 33].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Duty of Propounder – Court reiterated that when suspicious circumstances surround execution of a Will, the burden lies heavily on the propounder to remove such suspicions before the document can be accepted as genuine – Mere registration of a Will does not dispel suspicious circumstances – Discrepancies in testimonies of attesting witnesses and conduct of the testatrix created serious doubt regarding genuineness of the Will relied upon by the plaintiff [Paras 17, 21, 31–33].

Will – Subsequent Testament – Defendants relied upon later unregistered Will dated 10.08.1997 executed shortly before death of testatrix – All attesting witnesses examined and their evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Unregistered Will proved in accordance with law and being the last testament of the testatrix prevails over earlier disputed Will [Paras 34–38].

Civil Law – Declaration Suit – Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title – Plaintiff, being not a natural heir, failed to prove the Will forming basis of title – Defendants proved later Will and were also Class-II heirs under the Succession Act – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of title or recovery of possession – Trial Court erred in partly decreeing the suit [Paras 15, 39–40].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2006 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Guntur set aside – Suit in O.S.No.03 of 1998 dismissed – Parties directed to bear their own costs.

Criminal Trial – Chemical Analyst Reports – DNA Reports – Scientific Experts Examination – Fair Trial – Accused No.1 convicted for brutal sexual assault and murder of 6-year-old girl and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence including CA reports and DNA profiles – 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 collectively during examination-in-chief of investigating officer without summoning chemical analysers – No copies provided to accused, no opportunity for cross-examination – Trial Court relied heavily on CA reports in paragraphs 143 onwards to hold against accused – Trial Court observed that since accused did not move requisition for examining chemical analysers, reports admitted directly without examining analysers – Accused filed application invoking Sections 408 and 432 read with Section 329 BNSS seeking summoning of chemical analysers for cross-examination – Held: Sessions Court committed grave error in admitting CA reports without examining chemical analysers – Such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Whole purpose of trial is to ascertain truth and all steps to unearth truth must be taken by Court even if prosecution remiss in duty – Failure to summon scientific experts led to failure of justice vitiating trial – Fair opportunity to accused to defend absolutely imperative and non-negotiable in capital punishment case – Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of examining chemical analysers with ancillary directions [Paras 1-25].

Section 313 CrPC – Statement of Accused – Joint Recording Vitiated – Separate Statements Required – Trial Court recorded statement under Section 313 CrPC of both accused persons jointly putting questions and eliciting responses together – Only fact of receiving 12 CA reports marked as Exhibit-166 put as incriminating circumstance without details of reports – Accused sought direction for recording fresh statement under Section 313 CrPC after additional evidence – Held: Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC vitiated as questions put jointly to both accused which could not have been done – Matter being remanded for examining chemical analysers, entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for two accused – Will include further material coming on record pursuant to examination of chemical analysers [Paras 2, 10, 13, 22-25].

Remand – Limited Purpose – Evidence Already Recorded Not Wiped Out – Court set aside trial court judgment remanding matter for examining scientific experts connected with CA reports and DNA reports – Examined scope of remand – Held: Following Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs State of Madhya Pradesh, remand only to limited extent of examining witnesses concerning CA reports and DNA reports with ancillary directions – Trial not to be conducted de novo by wiping out evidence already on record – Remaining evidence that came on record shall remain as it is – Sessions Court to proceed without being influenced by observations in High Court order – Complete process within four months [Paras 16-18, 25].

Bail – Accused Convicted for Bailable Offences – Substantial Period Undergone – Matter Remanded – Accused No.2 convicted under Section 201 IPC and Section 21 POCSO Act, both bailable offences – Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 201 IPC and 6 months under Section 21 POCSO Act – Already suffered incarceration for 3 years 7 months indicating substantial period of sentence undergone – Matter remanded to Sessions Court would consume time – Continued custody would mean further incarceration – Held: Accused No.2 released on bail pending remanded proceedings – PR Bond of Rs.25,000 with surety – Remain present on all dates before Sessions Court – Communicate contact numbers and residential address – Cooperate with proceedings for expeditious completion [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Duty of Court – Ascertaining Truth – Court Witnesses – Scientific Experts – Prosecution relied on CA reports including serology and DNA profiles – Chemical analysers not summoned by prosecution – Trial Court admitted reports without examining analysers observing accused did not move requisition – Held: Duty of all persons in authority from investigation stage to ensure every bit of material brought on record to assist Court in ascertaining truth – Anything short of that vitiates entire process – Scientific experts ought to be court witnesses even if prosecution fails in duty to summon crucial witnesses – Court must take all steps in direction of unearthing truth even if prosecution remiss and accused not shown awareness at relevant time – Remand to Sessions Court to summon scientific experts as court witnesses with proper opportunity of examination to prosecution and defence in that order [Paras 20-21, 25].

Supreme Court Directions – Application to Remanded Trial – Sessions Court directed to summon scientific experts associated with preparation and issuance of CA reports and DNA reports with entire supporting material – Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused including case acceptance forms, registers, worksheets, bench notes, chain of custody, test results, equipment logbooks, calibration records, electropherograms, electronic raw data, procedure manuals, kit details, validation studies, quality control documentation – Accused to be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine summoned witnesses – After testimony recorded, accused to be questioned under Section 313 CrPC afresh in context of fresh evidence – Fair opportunity of leading defence evidence – Sessions Court to re-hear arguments and decide case afresh as per law – Entire process to be completed expeditiously preferably within four months [Paras 7, 16, 25].

Decision: Interim Application No.4190 of 2025 allowed - Impugned judgment dated 22.03.2024 of Sessions Court in Special Sessions Case No.176 of 2023 quashed and set aside - Matter remanded to Sessions Court for limited purpose of summoning chemical analysers and assistant chemical analysers for cross-examination - Complete laboratory documentation to be called and supplied to accused - Entire statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded afresh with separate statements for both accused - Accused No.2 released on bail on conditions - Sessions Court to complete proceedings expeditiously preferably within four months from 07.04.2026 - Confirmation Case No.3 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal Nos.367 of 2024 and 1262 of 2024 disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 9 Jurisdiction – Foreign Awards – Availability After Filing Part II Petition – Petitioner filed Section 9 petition seeking interim protection to secure foreign award amount pending parallel enforcement petition under Part II – Respondent contended Section 9 unavailable once Part II petition filed as enforcement and execution rolled up making terms interchangeable – Relied on Centrient holding Section 9 unavailable after execution proceedings filed – Court examined interplay of Section 9(1), Section 2(2), Section 36 and Part II provisions – Held: Section 2(2) explicitly extends Section 9 to foreign awards even if arbitration outside India – Domestic award automatically becomes decree upon expiry of Section 34 challenge period – Foreign award requires positive affirmation by Part II Court under Section 49 before becoming decree – Part II petition first seeks recognition, only thereafter translates to execution upon decree status conferred – Parliament consciously did not impose time limit on Section 9 for foreign awards while extending its scope – Until foreign award becomes decree under Section 49, Section 9 jurisdiction continues – Centrient distinguished as relating to domestic award where execution proceedings commenced – No absurd consequence in concurrent Section 9 and Part II jurisdictions – Legislative purpose to protect award-creditor cannot be ignored – Objection to jurisdiction dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 9 and Part II Interplay – Positive Affirmation Requirement – Court examined distinction between enforcement mechanism for domestic awards under Section 36 and foreign awards under Part II – Section 36 automatically treats domestic award as decree upon expiry of Section 34 period unless stayed – Foreign award under Part II requires award-creditor to apply with evidence under Section 47, pass muster through Section 48 conditions, and obtain positive satisfaction of Part II Court under Section 49 before becoming decree – Held: Triggering point for enforcement under Section 36 is automatic decree status upon expiry of challenge period – Triggering point for foreign award is positive affirmation by Part II Court under Section 49 declaring award enforceable – Further validation necessary for Indian Courts to treat foreign award as decree – Parliament left Section 9 linkage to Section 36 undisturbed when extending Section 9 to foreign awards via Section 2(2) proviso inserted in 2015 – Reasonable and logical given distinction in how domestic and foreign awards become decrees – No caveat imposed on Section 9 operation for foreign awards despite conscious legislative extension [Paras 14-23].

Interim Protection – Foreign Award Creditor – Asset Protection Pending Recognition – Petitioner sought protection to prevent dissipation of assets pending Part II recognition proceedings – Respondent argued concurrent Section 9 and Part II jurisdiction would create schematic anomaly – Court examined legislative scheme and concurrent jurisdictions – Held: Concurrent jurisdictions of Section 9 and Section 17 operated until Section 9(3) inserted requiring ordinary deference to Section 17 unless inefficacious – No similar provision limiting Section 9 when Part II petition filed – Not for Court to read into statutory scheme and refuse jurisdiction absent specific prohibition – Part II petition seeks recognition first, translates to execution only after decree status under Section 49 – Until that stage, Section 9 words "but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36" do not bar jurisdiction – After foreign award becomes decree, execution proceedings commence without new filing and Section 9 refrain appropriate – Larger legislative purpose of Section 9 to protect award-creditor and explicit scope of Section 2(2) extending Section 9 to foreign awards cannot be ignored – Direction issued to deposit award amount and disclose assets [Paras 24-30].

Precedent – Distinguishing Domestic from Foreign Award Cases – Respondent relied on Centrient holding Section 9 unavailable once execution proceedings filed for domestic award – Court distinguished precedent – Held: Centrient examined phrase "but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36" in Section 9(1) – Found once Section 34 challenge period expired, arbitral award enforceable as decree – On facts, award-creditor had initiated execution proceedings – Held recourse to Section 9 unavailable once award capable of enforcement as decree and execution steps initiated – Present case involves foreign award requiring positive recognition under Part II – Centrient relates to domestic award where execution proceedings actually commenced – Factually and legally distinguishable – Fuerst Day Lawson and LMJ International observations not relevant to denude Section 9 jurisdiction to protect creditor from asset dissipation [Paras 12, 28].

Legislative Intent – Amendment in 2015 – Extension of Section 9 to Foreign Awards – Court examined proviso to Section 2(2) inserted with effect from 23.10.2015 extending Section 9 to international commercial arbitration and foreign awards – Parliament renumbered existing Section 9 as Section 9(1) and added new sub-sections – Did not include reference to Part II to impose time limit on Section 9 for foreign awards – Existing provision linking to enforcement under Section 36 left undisturbed – Held: Apparently reasonable and logical given distinction between how domestic and foreign awards become decrees – No caveat to Section 9 operation even while Parliament conscious in extending Section 9 to foreign awards – Cannot infer and presume time limit lightly – Point is judicial inference based on statutory scheme attempting to import domestic award scheme to foreign awards – Without positive statutory choice imposing time limit, plain language of Section 9 cannot be ignored by extrapolating Section 36 reference to read unstated Part II reference [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Section 9 Petition disposed of with directions - Objection to jurisdiction dismissed - Respondent directed to deposit USD 269,105.08 in Indian Rupee equivalent with Court Registry within four weeks - Pending deposit, respondent prohibited from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interests in movable and immovable property except for generating disposal proceeds for deposit - Respondent to disclose on affidavit within two weeks detailed list of assets including bank accounts, assets sold in last two years, creditors and debtors, pending legal proceedings, and encumbered assets - Part II Petition for enforcement listed within two weeks.

Criminal Procedure – Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender – Section 82(4) CrPC – NDPS Offences – Petitioner granted bail in NDPS case, failed to appear on one date due to miscommunication, bail cancelled, non-bailable warrants issued, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and petitioner declared proclaimed offender on 17.03.2025 – Held: Declaration as proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC is permissible only in respect of offences specified therein, which are exclusively certain provisions of the IPC – Offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act do not find mention in Section 82(4) CrPC – Petitioner could only have been declared a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and not a proclaimed offender – Impugned order set aside to that extent [Paras 10-12].

Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed Offender – Distinction – There is a stark distinction between a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) CrPC and a proclaimed offender under Section 82(4) CrPC – All persons absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest can be proclaimed persons, but only those accused of specified IPC offences can be declared proclaimed offenders – The difference in punishment under Section 174-A IPC reflects this distinction: up to three years for a proclaimed person and up to seven years for a proclaimed offender – Sections 83 to 86 CrPC dealing with attachment of property apply to proclaimed persons and do not deal with proclaimed offenders [Para 11].

Proclamation – Mandatory Requirements – Section 82(1) CrPC – Proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused and such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of publication – In the present case, proclamation effected on 13.02.2025 and case merely adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording statement of serving official – Mandatory requirement of fixing date of appearance beyond 30 clear days from date of publication not complied with – Adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in proclamation proceedings – Fresh proclamation required to be issued in accordance with law – Proclamation proceedings vitiated [Paras 13-18].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 17.03.2025 set aside to the extent of declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Petitioner directed to surrender before Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within two weeks subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh – Petitioner to furnish fresh bail and surety bonds and undertaking to appear regularly – Order to be treated as vacated if petitioner fails to appear within stipulated period [Paras 20-22].

TNPID Act – Default in repayment – Financial establishment – Accused induced public to deposit money through false computer job scheme promising monthly returns and repayment – Failure to repay matured deposits to 39 depositors established through consistent oral and documentary evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 9–12]

Cheating and conspiracy – Sections 420 and 120B IPC – False promise and inducement – Accused issued advertisements and pamphlets to attract deposits with no intention to honour commitments – Common design established – Ingredients of cheating and conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9–11]

Evidence – Depositors as witnesses – Prosecution examined large number of depositors (PW1–PW39) and marked receipts, agreements and cheques – Evidence found cogent and trustworthy – Cross-examination did not discredit prosecution case [Paras 9–11]

Mens rea under TNPID Act – Requirement – Offence under Section 5 does not require strict proof of mens rea – Mere default in repayment of deposits sufficient to attract liability under the Act [Para 12]

Repayment – Partial repayment – Effect – Accused repaid part amount but substantial balance remained unpaid – Partial repayment does not absolve criminal liability [Paras 6, 12]

Sentence – Modification – Considering partial repayment and facts of case, sentence of 10 years under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced to 5 years – Fine amount maintained – Direction issued to deposit further sum towards dues [Para 13]

Conditional direction – Deposit of amount – Court directed appellants to deposit specified amount within stipulated time failing which original sentence to revive automatically [Para 13]

Appellate interference – Scope – No interference warranted in conviction where prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt – Interference limited to modification of sentence [Paras 12–13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 120B, 420 IPC and Section 5 TNPID Act confirmed – Sentence under Section 5 TNPID Act reduced from 10 years to 5 years simple imprisonment – Fine confirmed – Direction to deposit ₹37,50,000/- each within stipulated time, failing which original sentence to revive.

Service Law – Bank Employee – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal Without Notice – Misappropriation – Petitioner, a Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk with 19 years of unblemished service, suspended on allegations of activating 19 dormant pension accounts in the Finacle system without KYC documents and effecting cash payments of Rs.38.67 lakhs in gross violation of bank norms – Enquiry Officer found Charge I(i) partially proved, Charge I(ii) proved and Charge III not proved – Disciplinary Authority disagreed and held all charges fully proved – Punishment of dismissal without notice imposed – Statutory appeal rejected – Held: Decision of DA based on no evidence – DA merely paraphrased enquiry report without independent analysis – Order of DA and AA set aside – Matter remanded to DA for fresh decision within four weeks [Paras 1–53].

"Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings – Scope – Decision Based on No Evidence Amenable to Review"

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Authority – No Evidence – Scope of Writ Court – Writ court does not sit in appeal over findings of disciplinary authority or re-evaluate evidence – However, where the impugned finding is alleged to be based on no evidence, the writ court is not precluded from examining whether any material on record existed to sustain such finding – A finding unsupported by any evidence is liable to be interfered with in exercise of judicial review – Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof – Principles of natural justice require that findings in disciplinary proceedings must be founded on some evidence [Paras 20–22].

"Divergence Between Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority – DA Cannot Substitute Conclusions on Conjectures"

Disciplinary Authority – Disagreement With Enquiry Officer – Evidence – EO observed no oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence to substantiate Charge I(i) – Management failed to produce Branch Head or designated officer to establish CSE acted without instructions – EO noted documents on basis of which data was entered not available in branch records – EO also relied on handwriting expert's opinion that CSE was not involved in alleged forgery – DA however held all charges proved merely by paraphrasing portions of EO's report and treating absence of documentary evidence as corroborative of unauthorized conduct – Held: DA conducted no independent discussion of evidence – If verification in SOL alone was sufficient to establish charges, there was no necessity to hold departmental enquiry at all – DA's conclusion rests on conjectures and assumptions and cannot be sustained [Paras 36–42].

"Activation of Dormant Account – Not a Unilateral Act – Entire Responsibility Cannot Be Fastened on Single Employee"

Bank Operations – Dormant Account Activation – Shared Responsibility – Activation of dormant account involves multiple employees including authentication of LTI by an officer, entry of data by cash-paying employee and cancellation of LTI by another officer – Data entered under petitioner's User ID proved but no documents traced on basis of which petitioner entered data – Not proved who authenticated or cancelled LTIs of pensioners – No disciplinary proceedings initiated against any other staff member – Held: It is wholly improbable that entire process was carried out solely by petitioner and that he alone misappropriated the entire amount [Paras 43–44].

"Proportionality – Dismissal Disproportionate Where Misappropriation Not Proved"

Punishment – Proportionality – Principle of Proportionality – Acts at best proved against petitioner are entering data for activating accounts without dishonest intention, failure to record denominations on reverse of certain withdrawal slips and overlooking improper authentication of LTIs – Misappropriation not proved satisfactorily as death or change of address of pensioners also not established – Held: These acts do not warrant imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal – Punishment shocks conscience of court and is outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charges as proved [Paras 47–48].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Order of Disciplinary Authority set aside – Order of Appellate Authority quashed – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority from stage of enquiry report and written submission of petitioner – DA directed to reconsider the matter without being influenced by earlier decision and pass fresh order within four weeks – No order as to costs – Prayer for stay of judgment rejected.

Service Law – Judicial Officer – Adverse Entry in Confidential Report – Integrity – Discreet Enquiry – Petitioner, a Junior Civil Judge, received his ACR for 2009 in November 2011 recording his work as average, integrity as doubtful and judicial approach as erratic – ACR was based on pending disciplinary enquiries and discreet enquiries by a Judge of the High Court – Both disciplinary enquiries were subsequently dropped in 2012 – Review application filed by petitioner was rejected in February 2013 – Petitioner challenged the adverse entry and rejection of review as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 – Held: Court cannot substitute its view for that of the review committee in matters of integrity – Writ Petition dismissed – However, Court issues caution that adverse remarks on integrity must be based on inputs from diverse sources and not on a single input [Paras 2–11].

"Discreet Enquiry as Basis for Adverse Entry – Scope and Limitations"

Confidential Report – Discreet Enquiry – Integrity of Judicial Officer – Petitioner contended that once disciplinary proceedings were dropped and he was exonerated, adverse entry recording doubtful integrity could not survive – Further contended that discreet enquiry alone cannot form basis for adverse remarks in ACR – Court distinguishes the facts from the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by petitioner – Held: In matters of integrity, it is extremely difficult to obtain direct evidence or definite material – Court cannot interfere with the view of the review committee on the basis that the entry was founded on discreet enquiries, where direct evidence is inherently difficult to obtain [Paras 7–9].

"Protection of Judicial Officers – Adverse Remarks on Integrity Require Inputs from Diverse Sources"

Judicial Service – Confidential Reports – Integrity – Adverse Remarks – Court observes that disgruntled employees, colleagues or litigants are prone to making allegations against judicial officers on integrity – Held: Adequate precautions must be taken before adverse remarks are placed in Confidential Reports of judicial officers – It would not be safe to record an adverse entry on integrity based on a single input, even if from the Principal District Judge – Allegations must be cross-checked from diverse sources before recording such remarks – Court issues this caution even while declining to interfere with the impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Civil Law – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Will Under Adjudication – Plaintiff Smt. Preeto Devi filed a suit for vacant possession against her son Balwinder Singh – During pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 22.10.2024 – Application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC seeking substitution of Babhishan Singh, his wife Urmila Devi and two grandsons on the basis of a Will dated 05.03.2020 – Validity of the said Will already under challenge by the defendant before the same court in separate proceedings – Trial Court partly allowed the application directing substitution of Babhishan Singh as legal representative but rejected substitution of Urmila Devi, Udey Pathania and Nahar Pathania – Held: All sons of the deceased are necessary and proper parties and are required to be arrayed in the proceedings – Validity of the Will cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – No infirmity in the order of the Trial Court – Petition dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of the learned Civil Judge, Indora, dated 19.09.2025 upheld.

Constitutional Law – Article 371-A – Legislative Competence of State of Nagaland – Petroleum and Natural Gas – Article 131 Jurisdiction – PIL Maintainability – The State of Nagaland enacted the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 and Rules, 2012 pursuant to a resolution dated 26.07.2010 of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly, claiming power under Article 371-A(1)(a)(iv) which provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly so decides – Union of India contested the legislative competence of the Nagaland Legislature, contending that regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil is exclusively reserved for Parliament under Entry 53 of List-I – Core question whether Article 371-A confers affirmative legislative competence upon the State or is merely a disabling provision preventing application of Union laws – Held: The dispute between the Union of India and the State of Nagaland on the question of legislative competence falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131(a) of the Constitution – High Court declines to adjudicate the issue [Paras 35-49].

PIL – Maintainability – Article 226 – Limits of PIL Jurisdiction – PIL under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner is a public-spirited person raising issues of fundamental rights violations of poor, disadvantaged, or marginalised sections, or environmental and human rights issues – The issue raised in the present PIL relates to legislative competence of the State and does not involve curtailment or deprivation of any fundamental right of a citizen – Union of India is not disabled from approaching an appropriate forum to challenge the validity of the 2012 Regulations and Rules – Ordinarily, High Courts should not entertain PILs questioning the constitutionality or validity of statutes or statutory rules – PIL closed in exercise of self-restraint [Paras 43-50].

Article 131 – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – The real issue of whether the Nagaland Legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2012 Regulations and Rules, as contested by the Union of India, is a dispute between the Union and the State of Nagaland which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Clause (a) of Article 131 – The presence of respondent No. 7, a private company, as a party does not alter this conclusion since respondent No. 7 has no locus to contest the question of legislative competence between the Union and the State [Paras 35-42].

Decision: PIL closed – Liberty granted to the Union of India to assail the Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012, the Rules, 2012, and the tender/Expression of Interest process in an appropriate manner – No order as to costs.