Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].

Death Penalty – Post-Mercy Judicial Review – Article 21 – Even after confirmation of death sentence and rejection of mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161, the fundamental right to life and human dignity continues to subsist – Constitutional Courts are empowered to examine supervening circumstances affecting fairness, humanity and constitutionality of execution – Scope of judicial review confined to post-conviction events without reopening guilt [Paras 25–27, 52].

Solitary Confinement – Illegal Segregation Prior to Finality of Sentence – Appellants kept in separate cells from 21.12.2006 to 2009 before exhaustion of judicial and constitutional remedies – Such segregation held illegal and violative of Article 21 – Section 30(2) of Prisons Act applicable only when death sentence becomes final, conclusive and executable – Reliance on Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration – Illegal solitary confinement itself a valid ground for commutation [Paras 28–33, 39–43, 53(i)].

Punjab Jail Manual – Statutory Segregation – Constitutional Limits – Provisions permitting confinement “apart from other prisoners” cannot be enforced to impose complete social and sensory isolation – Jail authorities lack power to add punitive solitary confinement beyond judicial sentence – Any segregation resulting in denial of sight and communication with fellow prisoners held unconstitutional [Paras 29–31, 43].

Delay in Disposal of Mercy Petitions – Executive Apathy – Mental Torture – Unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than four years attributable to State authorities at multiple stages – Failure to inform appellants of right to file mercy petitions and denial of legal aid post dismissal of review – Misrouting of mercy petitions, prolonged inaction despite repeated reminders by MHA, erroneous reliance on Sriharan judgment, and one-year delay in communicating rejection by Governor – Held: Delay caused severe mental agony and violated Article 21 [Paras 34–37, 44–49, 53(ii)].

Mercy Petition – Procedural Safeguards – Mandatory Compliance – MHA guidelines requiring immediate intimation to convicts and legal assistance for preparation of mercy petitions are binding – Non-compliance vitiates post-conviction process – Making convicts sign multiple mercy petitions without legal aid held impermissible – Procedural lapses constitute relevant supervening factor for commutation [Paras 44–50].

Gravity of Crime – Irrelevance in Post-Mercy Proceedings – Heinous nature of offence and brutality involved cannot be considered at post-mercy stage – Focus confined to delay, prison conditions, dignity, and fairness – Reliance on Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India [Paras 11, 36, 52].

Long Incarceration on Death Row – ‘Death Row Phenomenon’ – Appellants incarcerated for over twenty years under constant threat of execution – Prolonged uncertainty and psychological trauma recognised as infringement of Article 21 – Mental suffering outweighs relevance of physical health alone [Paras 35–37, 51, 53(iii)].

Maintainability – Letters Patent Appeal – Writ Based on Mercy Delay – Proceedings challenging delay in mercy petitions are independent of original conviction – Intra-court appeal maintainable against dismissal of such writ petitions – Supreme Court remand settled maintainability issue [Paras 7–8].

Sentence – Commutation – Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life – Cumulative effect of illegal solitary confinement, inordinate delay, prolonged incarceration and procedural lapses warranted commutation – Death sentence substituted with life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – No remission or premature release permissible – Balance struck between constitutional rights of convicts and societal interests [Paras 22, 54].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeals partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for remainder of natural life – Impugned judgment of Single Judge modified accordingly.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

SARFAESI Act – Parallel Proceedings – Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners challenged SARFAESI actions under Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 after having unsuccessfully litigated in earlier writ petitions and appeals up to the Supreme Court – Held: Present writ petition barred by constructive res judicata – Petitioners impermissibly sought to relitigate issues already adjudicated finally in earlier proceedings [Paras 24-25].

Res Judicata – Fragmented Litigation – Abuse of Process – Petitioners’ attempt to question the validity of SARFAESI proceedings afresh without disclosing full litigation history amounted to strategic fragmentation – Held: Parties must place all claims and defences in one proceeding – Piecemeal litigation burdens the judicial system and is legally barred under the Henderson Principle and Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC [Paras 24-25].

Judicial Discipline – Finality of Adjudication – Prior Dismissal by Apex Court – Petitioners had already pursued writ petitions, writ appeals, review petitions, and SLP before the Supreme Court which were all dismissed – Held: Judicial discipline demands that concluded controversies not be reopened under the guise of new technical challenges [Para 4].

Writ Appeal – Non-Prosecution – Appeal Dismissed – Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, appellants repeatedly failed to appear and prosecute the appeal – Final hearing saw no representation – Held: Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – Application to implead legal heirs also dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution – I.A. No. 1 of 2025 (for impleading legal heirs of deceased appellant) also dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2025 upheld [Para 11].

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.

Execution of Decree – Confirmation of Possession – Recovery of Possession Permissible – Decree holder obtained decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction – After finality of decree, judgment debtor forcibly entered into possession – Held: Such conduct amounts to obstruction – Executing Court rightly directed eviction to enforce decree – A decree of confirmation of possession, once violated, can be enforced by removal of obstruction [Paras 6, 8, 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Section 47 CPC – Repeated Applications – Judgment debtor filed multiple applications under Section 47 CPC on same grounds after rejection of earlier ones – Held: Such repeated objections barred by principle akin to res judicata – Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi followed – Frivolous objections to execution to be sternly dealt with [Paras 5, 14–15]

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Applicability of Article 136 – Petitioners contended execution was barred by limitation – Court held decree also involved permanent injunction, and thus not governed by 12-year limitation under Article 136 – Execution was within time as obstruction occurred post-second appeal – Held: Enforcement of perpetual injunction not time-barred [Paras 8–9, 19]

Interpretation of Decree – Executing Court’s Role – Judgment debtor contended that eviction not permissible as decree lacked specific direction for possession – Court held: Executing Court can interpret decree to determine its enforceability, especially when decree holder’s possession was confirmed and later obstructed – Relief sought does not go beyond decree but seeks its enforcement [Paras 21–22]

Abuse of Process – Judgment Debtor’s Tactics – Repeated filing of objections and technical pleas by judgment debtor seen as an attempt to delay and frustrate decree – Held: Courts cannot allow decree holder to be driven to file fresh suit when earlier decree has attained finality – Conduct of judgment debtor amounted to abuse of process [Paras 1, 17–18, 23]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Executing Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders upheld – Decree holder entitled to recover possession in enforcement of decree confirming possession and restraining interference – Executing Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

Education Law – Student Union Elections – Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations – Petitioners sought mandamus for annual conduct of Student Union elections within 6–8 weeks of commencement of academic session as per Lyngdoh Committee – Court examined scope, enforceability and present applicability of recommendations in light of academic exigencies and institutional autonomy [Paras 1–3, 14–21].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Locus Standi – Writ petitions filed by a handful of students without representative authorization – Held: Petitioners lacked locus standi to espouse cause of lakhs of students across State – Petitions not framed as PIL – Individual writs seeking representative relief not maintainable [Paras 43–44.1].

Writ Jurisdiction – Prematurity – Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies – Petitioners failed to approach Dean, Student Welfare or University Election Authorities prior to invoking writ jurisdiction – No representation, grievance or adverse decision on record – Held: Courts do not issue writs in vacuum or at pre-decisional stage – Petitions premature [Paras 43–44.4].

Fundamental Rights – Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(c) – Scope – Right to freedom of speech and association does not translate into an enforceable fundamental right to demand conduct of Student Union elections at a particular time – Participation in elections held to be statutory/administrative, not absolute fundamental right [Paras 23–25, 34–36].

Academic Autonomy vs Student Democracy – Doctrine of Balance – Student elections recognized as beneficial for democratic values and leadership – However, academic primacy, discipline and institutional harmony held paramount – Elections are ancillary to core academic mandate and must not disrupt educational ecosystem [Paras 41–42].

Lyngdoh Committee – Binding Nature – Court noted conflicting submissions on continued enforceability of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations post dismissal of University of Kerala appeal – Declined to issue mandamus enforcing elections for current academic year – Issue left to be addressed through institutional mechanisms [Paras 32–33, 52].

Prospective Directions – Judicial Guidelines – Despite dismissal of writs, Court issued extensive prospective directions in aid of good governance – Universities directed to evolve consultative and transparent mechanism for future conduct of Student Union elections – Directions issued under constitutional role of Court as sentinel on the qui vive [Paras 45–61].

Directions to Students – Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Students directed to first approach University authorities (DSW/Election Board) – Mandatory hearing to be afforded – Special meeting directed to be convened on 19.01.2026 for consultation with student representatives and affiliated colleges [Paras 47–49].

Directions to Universities and State – Accountability – Universities directed to maintain Election Boards, ensure transparency in use of election-related fees, and follow principles of natural justice – Decision on election framework to be taken within 15 days of consultative meeting [Paras 50–51].

Prospective Conduct of Elections – Court refrained from directing elections for academic year 2025–26 as session at fag end – Directed future election calendars to be issued ordinarily in March – Deviations to be supported by cogent reasons – Mode of elections to comply with RUSU Guidelines, 2017 [Paras 52–53].

Campus Discipline – Political Interference – Court cautioned against external political influence (ABVP, NSUI, SFI, etc.) – Student elections to remain student-centric – Age limits, expenditure caps and disclosure norms to be strictly enforced [Para 52(e)].

Use of University Infrastructure – General Elections – Court issued prospective directions to Election Commission of India and civil authorities to avoid requisitioning Universities as polling/counting centres where it disrupts academics – Academic calendars to be respected, especially under semester system [Paras 54–60].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable and premature – No mandamus issued for conduct of Student Union elections for academic year 2025–26 – Extensive prospective guidelines issued to students, Universities, State Government and Election Commission – Registrar (Judicial) directed to forward judgment to concerned authorities – No order as to costs [Paras 44–65].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Criminal Law - Sections 8(c), 21, 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of Innocence – Trial Court Acquittal – Held: Appellate court can interfere only if findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where trial court view is a possible and plausible view, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible [Paras 15–16, 18].

Search and Seizure – Sections 42 and 43 NDPS Act – Public Place Search – Alleged seizure at toll plaza – Prosecution contended applicability of Section 43 – Trial court held non-compliance of Section 42 – Evidence disclosed receipt of prior information and procedural lapses – Held: Trial court justified in holding violation of mandatory safeguards – Entire proceedings vitiated [Paras 17–24, 36].

Confessional Statement – Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntariness – Accused allegedly confined overnight and kept under restraint – Statement containing technical legal terminology – Held: Statement not voluntary and hit by Section 36 of Evidence Act – No evidentiary value could be attached to such statement [Paras 25–26, 31–32].

Independent Witnesses – Panch Witnesses Turning Hostile – Non-examination of Material Witness – Driver of vehicle not examined – Complainant not examined despite opportunity – Held: Serious infirmities in prosecution case – Adverse inference rightly drawn by trial court [Paras 17, 27, 31].

Possession of Contraband – Exclusive Possession – Prosecution failed to establish conscious and exclusive possession of 5.800 kg heroin – Contradictions in evidence of official witnesses – Independent corroboration absent – Held: Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act not attracted [Paras 27, 31, 37].

Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Evidence Against Co-accused – Case against A2 to A4 based solely on alleged statement of co-accused – Retraction of confession – Delay in arraying accused – Held: No reliable evidence of conspiracy or role of co-accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 33–35].

Compliance with NDPS Safeguards – Sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 – Custody and sealing procedures – Failure to hand over seal to independent witnesses – Non-production before nearest police station – Held: Procedural safeguards not complied with – Prosecution case rendered doubtful [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2011 passed in Spl. Case No. 46/2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Tumkur affirmed – No interference warranted.