Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Constitutional Jurisdiction – Applicant aged 14 years and 6 months, victim of rape, sought permission for termination of pregnancy – FIR registered under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS – Medical Board opined pregnancy of about 15 weeks and found termination permissible under MTP Act – Held: In cases of rape of a minor, continuance of pregnancy presumed to cause grave injury to mental health – Termination allowed in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution [Paras 1–6, 11].

MTP Act – Sections 3 and Rule 3B – Pregnancy up to 24 Weeks – Survivors of Sexual Assault and Minors – Rule 3B expressly permits termination up to 24 weeks for minors and survivors of rape – Opinion of Medical Board confirmed safety of procedure – Statutory framework recognizes autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity of pregnant woman – Court relied on Supreme Court exposition in X v. Union of India [Paras 6–9].

Right to Reproductive Choice – Article 21 – Bodily Autonomy and Dignity – Forcing a minor rape victim to continue pregnancy would violate her right to life with dignity – Reproductive choice is inseparable from personal liberty under Article 21 – Best interest of the victim is paramount consideration – Continuation of pregnancy would aggravate trauma, mental agony and social harm [Paras 9–11].

Best Interest Doctrine – Victim-Centric Approach – Court emphasized “best interest” theory while dealing with pregnancy of minor rape survivor – Psychological trauma, social ostracism and long-term impact on minor taken into account – Termination directed without delay to prevent further aggravation of victim’s suffering [Paras 11–13].

Procedure and Safeguards – Medical Board – DNA Preservation – Court directed constitution of team of senior gynaecologists and psychologist for conducting termination – Hospital directed to ensure pre and post-operative care – Directions issued for scientific collection and preservation of fetal tissue for DNA profiling to aid investigation – If child born alive, best medical care and State responsibility ensured under JJ Act [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Medical termination of pregnancy of minor rape victim permitted – Detailed directions issued to Zydus Medical College and Hospital, Dahod – Petition disposed of with safeguards and compliance directions.

Writ Jurisdiction – Termination of Contract under Risk and Cost – Scope of Judicial Review – PWD Road Work – Contractor sought quashing of termination order alleging defective estimate, change in site conditions, requirement of additional retaining walls, rigid pavement and shifting of electric posts – Held: After executing contract with full knowledge of scope of work, contractor cannot resile and demand revision of estimate or additional amounts – Disputes essentially contractual in nature – No arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 30–32].

Public Works Contract – Estimate and DPR – Binding Nature – Contractor’s Obligation – Petitioner contended that sanctioned estimate and DPR did not match site conditions and required additional expenditure of ₹3.5 crores – Court held that Ext.P10 site report was only a recommendation and not an आदेश altering contractual obligations – Contractor bound to execute work strictly as per agreement and sanctioned estimate – Cannot insist on additional works post agreement [Paras 31–33].

Risk and Cost Termination – Delay in Execution – Extension of Time Granted – Failure to Complete Work – Agreement executed for completion within stipulated time – Extensions granted twice – Contractor failed to complete even 50% of work – Held: Termination under risk and cost justified – No illegality in forfeiture of performance guarantee and initiation of consequential steps [Paras 27–28, 38].

Electric Posts – Alleged Hindrance – Road Width Dispute – Sanctioned width only 3.75 metres – Contractor’s claim based on alleged local demand for 6–7 metre width rejected – Shifting of 7 electric posts already effected – Claim of necessity to remove 24 electric posts held untenable – Contractor bound by sanctioned estimate and agreement terms [Paras 34–35].

Article 14 – Arbitrariness – State Action in Contractual Field – Limits – Reliance on Supreme Court precedents – Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not an avenue to rewrite contracts or adjudicate disputed facts unless State action is arbitrary or perverse – No violation of Article 14 established in termination order [Paras 21–23, 29–32].

Hearing on Risk and Cost Liability – Limited Relief – While upholding termination, Court directed that contractor shall be afforded opportunity of hearing while computing final liability under risk and cost clause – Limited procedural safeguard granted [Para 38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Termination order upheld – Direction issued to grant petitioner opportunity of hearing before finalising liability under risk and cost clause.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Allegation of Voyeurism – Section 354C IPC – Ingredients of Offence Not Made Out – Private complaint alleging taking of photograph of complainant while laying clothes for drying – Sworn statement did not disclose that complainant was engaged in a “private act” or that her privacy was violated – No allegation of exposure of private parts or expectation of privacy as contemplated under Section 354C – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–10, 11].

Voyeurism – Meaning of “Private Act” – Explanation to Section 354C IPC – Scope – Act of laying clothes for drying in front of house – No material to show complainant was not properly dressed or engaged in any act reasonably expected to provide privacy – Mere presence of accused or flashing of light insufficient to attract offence – Cognizance taken without foundational facts – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Information Technology Act – Section 66E – Violation of Privacy – Capture of Image of Private Area – Essential Requirement – Sworn statement of complainant did not allege photographing of naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts – No prima facie case under Section 66E made out [Para 10].

Protest Complaint – Credibility – Contradictory Versions – Initial complaint, investigation reports and protest complaint disclose material inconsistencies – Two police refer reports finding complaint false – Radical change in version at protest stage – Statements of witnesses inconsistent with complainant’s own version – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance in absence of sufficient materials [Paras 3–5, 7, 11].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Abuse of Process – Accused compelled to face prosecution without sufficient grounds – Held: Ends of justice require interference – Proceedings in C.C No.555/2018 quashed against Accused Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C No.555/2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara quashed.

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Employees of State-Controlled Society – Parity with Government Employees – Petitioners employed in MJPAPBCWRIS sought continuation in service till 62 years based on G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 enhancing superannuation age of Government employees – Society contended that Government consent required and relied on Finance Department Circular dated 23.09.2022 – Held: Petitioners entitled to enhanced age of superannuation [Paras 1–3, 19].

Statutory Service Regulations – Rule 14 – Application of Government Rules – Legislation by Reference – Rule 14 of MJPAPBCWRIS Service Regulations, 2018 provides that age of superannuation shall be on par with respective Government employees – Held: Rule amounts to legislation by general reference – Subsequent amendment enhancing superannuation age of Government employees automatically applies to Society employees [Paras 10–12].

Circular vs Statutory Rules – Executive Instructions Cannot Override Statutory Service Regulations – Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 excluding non-Government employees from benefit of enhanced superannuation age cannot prevail over Service Regulations framed with Government approval – Action of respondents retiring petitioners at 60 years held illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3, 12, 18].

Consent of State Government – Not Required Where Statutory Parity Exists – Distinction between Corporation Bye-laws and Statutory Service Rules – Reliance on Division Bench decision in G. Rama Mohan Rao case held inapplicable – Where service conditions are statutory and approved by Government, separate consent for enhancement of superannuation age not required [Paras 18–19].

Precedents – Supreme Court on Parity Clauses – Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese and Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer – Applied – As long as parity clause in Service Regulations remains unamended, benefit of enhanced age of superannuation cannot be denied to Society employees [Paras 11–15].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Petitioners entitled to continue in service till attaining age of 62 years on par with Government employees – Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 set aside insofar as petitioners are concerned – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

Medical Reimbursement – Emergency Treatment – Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, suffered viral meningoencephalitis, went into coma and was admitted in Emergency ICU at Fortis Hospital – Total expenditure ₹3,54,647/- – Reimbursement restricted to ₹1,38,422/- as per PGI/AIIMS rates under policy dated 06.05.2005 – Held: In admitted life-threatening emergency, reimbursement cannot be mechanically restricted to notified rates solely on ground of non-empanelment – Calculation sheet quashed – Balance amount directed to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a. [Paras 16–20, 41].

Right to Health – Article 21 – Scope and Constitutional Obligation – Court reiterated that right to health and medical care is integral to right to life – Executive memoranda cannot override fundamental rights – Preservation of human life is paramount constitutional duty of State – Fiscal constraints or technicalities cannot defeat genuine emergency claims [Paras 21–25, 29].

Service Law – Medical Facilities to Retired Employees – Welfare State – State obligated to bear medical expenses of its employees and pensioners in genuine emergencies – Social security in old age is constitutional expectation, not charity – Mechanical application of policy converting constitutional entitlement into bureaucratic concession deprecated [Paras 35–36].

Administrative Policy – Interpretation in Light of Article 21 – Executive policy regulating reimbursement must be read in consonance with constitutional ethos – In certified life-threatening emergencies, empanelment status of hospital cannot be sole ground to substantially curtail reimbursement – Where two interpretations possible, one advancing preservation of life must prevail [Paras 33–34, 40].

Natural Justice – Non-Speaking Reduction – Balance claim declined without speaking order – Calculation sheet supplied only under RTI – Approach held mechanical and insensitive in context of emergency medical claim [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Calculation sheet dated 17.05.2018 quashed to extent it restricted reimbursement – Respondents directed to reimburse remaining ₹2,16,225/- within four weeks – Amount to carry interest @ 9% per annum from 25.01.2018 (date of discharge) till actual payment – State advised to revisit policy to incorporate mechanism for full/substantial reimbursement in certified life-threatening emergencies [Paras 41–43].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – MMRDA Act, 1974 – Grant of TDR instead of monetary compensation – Illegality – Land of petitioners acquired for Santacruz–Chembur Link Road project – Competent Authority unilaterally awarded compensation in the form of TDR without determining monetary compensation under Section 35 – Statutory scheme under Section 35 mandates determination of “amount” payable – Held: Compensation under the MMRDA Act must be monetary and cannot be substituted by TDR unilaterally – Award dated 15.12.2012 held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 28–35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 35, MMRDA Act – Step-wise procedure mandatory – Section 35 provides a complete code for determination of compensation – Requires attempt at agreement under Section 35(2) and, failing that, determination of compensation based on net average monthly income – No provision permitting unilateral grant of TDR – Any deviation from statutory mechanism violates authority of law under Article 300A [Paras 23–29, 34–35].

Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Consent of land owner – Requirement of consensus – Even where statute contemplates TDR (as under MRTP Act), grant must be by consensus – Applying Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers – Under MMRDA Act, which does not expressly provide for TDR, unilateral imposition of TDR is impermissible – Petitioners on stronger footing [Paras 30–34].

Alternative Remedy – Tribunal under Section 35(6) – Not efficacious – Tribunal’s jurisdiction confined to disputes regarding quantum of monetary compensation based on net average monthly income – Tribunal cannot adjudicate legality of grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation – Objection of alternative remedy rejected [Paras 36–37].

Delay and Laches – Continuing violation of Article 300A – Acquisition completed in 2011–2012, writ petition filed in 2024 – Held: Forcible deprivation of property without lawful compensation constitutes continuing wrong – State cannot defeat constitutional right to property on ground of delay – Reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra, Vidya Devi, and Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah [Paras 38–45].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300A – Deprivation of property must be by authority of law and accompanied by just, fair and reasonable compensation – Compensation is integral to lawful acquisition – Unilateral grant of TDR amounts to taking possession without authority of law – Violates constitutional and human right to property [Paras 39–44].

Relief – Quashing of Award – Direction to determine monetary compensation – Impugned award dated 15.12.2012 and communication dated 01.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to determine monetary compensation strictly in accordance with Section 35(2) to 35(5) of the MMRDA Act – Exercise to be completed within six months – Writ petition allowed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned award and communication set aside – Respondents directed to determine and pay monetary compensation as per Section 35 of the MMRDA Act within six months.

Sports Law – Olympic Selection – Cross Country Skiing – Exclusion of Meritorious Athlete – Arbitrary Selection Process – Petitioner, top-ranked Indian athlete as per FIS points list dated 19.01.2026, excluded from Olympic consideration on ground of non-participation in World Championship – Held: FIS Qualification System prescribes exhaustive, objective, points-based eligibility criteria under Section C – Participation in World Championship not a mandatory eligibility condition – Selection based on extraneous criteria is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law [Paras 34–45].

Sports Selection – FIS Qualification System – Distinction between Athlete Eligibility and Quota Allocation – Section C governs athlete eligibility based on age, medical fitness, and FIS points – Section D relates only to allocation of quota to National Olympic Committees – Held: Respondents impermissibly conflated quota allocation with athlete eligibility – Additional conditions cannot be read into the Qualification System by executive interpretation [Paras 38–44].

Administrative Law – Arbitrariness – Introduction of Non-Notified Selection Criteria – Respondents restricted Olympic selection to performance in March 2025 World Championship, ignoring notified assessment period from 01.07.2024 to 18.01.2026 – Held: Retrospective and selective application of criteria defeats the notified qualification framework and violates principles of fairness and transparency [Paras 46–47, 50].

Sports Governance – Long List under NOC Accreditation Manual – Scope and Effect – Long List dated 26.09.2025 relied upon to exclude petitioner – Held: Long List is only an accreditation mechanism and cannot override Final List based on FIS points – Clause 3.2.2 does not mandate World Championship participation as a precondition – Exclusion from Long List cannot defeat substantive eligibility [Paras 48–49].

Judicial Review – Sports Matters – Limits and Exceptions – While courts ordinarily defer to expert bodies in athlete selection, interference is justified where decision-making is arbitrary, unfair, or contrary to governing rules – Present case falls within exception warranting judicial intervention [Paras 31–33, 45].

Ad-hoc Committee – Selection Process – Procedural Impropriety and Bias – Selection undertaken by Ad-hoc Committee applying criteria not traceable to international qualification documents – Held: Committee acted beyond authority and contrary to binding FIS framework – Selection process vitiated [Paras 50, 52–55].

Relief – Direction to Ensure Olympic Participation – Prayer to include petitioner allowed – Respondent IOA and Ad-hoc Committee failed in supervisory duty – Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports directed to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate petitioner’s participation in Winter Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, with full cooperation from IOA [Paras 56–58].

Observations on Role of State and Sports Bodies – Ministry cannot act as mute spectator in matters affecting athletes’ careers and national representation – Fairness, transparency, and merit-based governance are integral to sports administration – Institutional indifference deprecated [Paras 54–59].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Exclusion of petitioner declared arbitrary and illegal – Directions issued to facilitate petitioner’s participation in XXV Olympic Winter Games, Milano Cortina 2026 – Prayer C (challenge to Ad-hoc Committee) kept pending; respondents directed to file reply – Matter listed for further hearing.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 – Resumption of Land – Proof of Grant – Absence of Original Records – Assistant Commissioner proceeded on assumptions without producing grant order or authenticated records – Mere reference to “documents available on record” insufficient – Order of resumption unsustainable [Paras 21–26].

PTCL Act – Burden of Proof – Claimants seeking resumption must conclusively establish that land was granted to a member of SC/ST with conditions against alienation – Confiscatory nature of resumption proceedings – Strict proof required – Deputy Commissioner rightly set aside resumption order in absence of proof [Paras 27–28].

Grant vs. Auction Sale – Darkhast Register – Material produced in appeal indicating that land was sold to original holder in public auction and not granted free or at concessional rate – Land sold in auction does not attract PTCL Act – Proceedings under PTCL Act not maintainable [Paras 18–20, 21–22].

Alienation of Land – Registered Sale Deed of 1951 – Long Possession of Purchasers and their Successors – Delay and Laches – Application for resumption filed after about 46–47 years – Such belated challenge to alienation held not maintainable [Paras 25, 30].

Single Judge’s Order – Error Apparent – Proceeded on assumption that grant in favour of Bovi community member stood proved – Failed to examine absence of original grant records and delay – Order set aside [Paras 16, 28–29].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Order dated 17.11.2004 passed in W.P. No. 7988/2002 (SC/ST) set aside – Appellate order of Deputy Commissioner dated 15.10.2001 restored – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 31–32].

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Withdrawal or Explanation of Admission – Permissibility – Plaintiffs originally pleaded that predecessor-in-title Udharani Dasi was absolute owner of suit property – By amendment sought to plead that Udharani had only limited interest under prevailing law and lacked authority to alienate property between 1911–1933 – Defendants contended amendment impermissible as it withdraws admission and changes nature of suit – Held: Admission does not create title and is not conclusive – Admission may be explained or clarified if facts justify – Amendment explaining legal nature of predecessor’s title not mutually destructive of original pleading [Paras 13, 18–19, 22].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment After Framing of Issues – Due Diligence – Application for amendment filed after framing of issues and at stage of evidence – Objection that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 attracted – Held: Mere delay not a ground to refuse amendment – Dominant test is whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy between parties – Belated amendment can be allowed if prejudice can be compensated by costs or opportunity to file additional written statement [Paras 20–21].

Cause of Action – Nature and Character of Suit – No Fundamental Change – Original suit for declaration of joint ownership and partition – Proposed amendment did not seek additional relief nor introduce a new cause of action – Core controversy remained determination of title and succession – Held: Amendment neither changes nature nor character of suit nor substitutes a new and inconsistent case [Paras 17–19, 21, 23].

Amendment of Pleadings – Real Controversy Test – Court must not examine correctness or falsity of amended plea at amendment stage – Real controversy test to be applied – Amendment necessary to adjudicate whether Udharani had transferable title under law prevailing at relevant time – Held: Trial court rightly allowed amendment to enable complete and effective adjudication [Paras 16–18].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – Order allowing amendment discretionary and procedural – No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error found – Held: High Court will not interfere under Article 227 merely because another view is possible [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order dated 20.02.2024 allowing amendment of plaint affirmed – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No order as to costs.