Service Law – Regularization of Teachers – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 57(A)(6) – Quashing of rejection order – The State Government rejected the University's proposal for confirmation of 67 teachers, including the petitioners, on the ground that Section 57(A)(6) of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, was not applicable to teachers of affiliated colleges receiving deficit grant-in-aid, but only to those receiving performance-based grants – The Court held that the Preamble to the 2017 amendment of Section 57(A)(6) abolished the "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" and intended scrutiny of all teachers appointed without Bihar College Service Commission recommendation, without distinction based on the type of grant – The State's distinction was found to be misplaced and arbitrary – The impugned rejection order was quashed – The State was directed to release grants for salary and other allowances – The High Court's earlier judgments in Balram Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ghanshyam Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., which quashed similar rejection orders and attained finality upon dismissal of LPAs and SLPs, were relied upon – The Court found no reason to take a divergent view – The State was directed to conduct similar exercise for the petitioners – Final Holding: The State's rejection of regularization and salary release based on the type of grant is arbitrary and contrary to the legislative intent of Section 57(A)(6) [Paras 51-58, 60-62].

Constitutional Law – Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Forced Labour – Article 23 – Withholding of Salary – The State Government arbitrarily withheld salaries of teachers whose services were regularized by the University, without issuing any order for their removal – The Court held that no person can be asked to perform duties without being paid their due salary – Such action is in defiance of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 – The actions of the respondents were highly deprecated – The Supreme Court's dictum in Man Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., holding that salary must be paid for duties discharged even if the appointment is irregular, was cited – Final Holding: Withholding of salary for duly discharged duties, especially after regularization, violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution [Paras 59, 97].

Service Law – Appointment of Teachers in Constituent Colleges – Prior Approval of State Government – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 35 – The State contended that regularization of temporary teachers in constituent colleges was not possible as relevant statutes were declared ultra vires in Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., and that prior approval of the State Government was required – The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., which held that prior approval of the State Government is not required when the post is already sanctioned and the appointment is made after advertisement and interview – The Court noted that the issues were put to rest by coordinate bench judgments which quashed similar rejection orders based on Braj Kishore Singh (supra) – Final Holding: Post-facto approval of the State Government is not required for appointments against sanctioned posts in constituent colleges, and regularization based on due process is valid [Paras 89-90, 93-96].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned orders rejecting the proposals for confirmation of services and release of grants were quashed – The State Government was directed to release funds for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits in terms of UGC pay-scale to the petitioners of all writ petitions within a period of two months – Paras [62, 63, 97, 98].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Wife’s abusive conduct, repeated complaints, abandonment of child and refusal to cohabit proved – Custody of minor child with father upheld – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month justified – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17–24].

Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Mental Cruelty – Evidence established that wife used abusive and derogatory language towards husband and his parents, filed multiple complaints before various forums, disrupted panchayaths and conciliation proceedings, and consistently expressed unwillingness to continue marital life – Conduct not ordinary wear and tear of marriage but grave and weighty – Finding of cruelty by Family Court affirmed [Paras 13–17, 19].

Desertion – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Animus Deserendi – Wife admitted living separately since 30.04.2014 – Continuous separation for more than two years preceding filing of petition established – No bona fide effort to resume cohabitation – Ingredients of desertion satisfied – Decree of divorce rightly granted [Paras 13.8, 18, 20].

Child Custody – Guardians and Wards Act – Welfare of Child – Minor daughter abandoned by mother in 2014 and remained continuously in custody of father and paternal grandparents – Child cared for by father since infancy – Mother sought custody only after matrimonial dispute escalated – No evidence of incapacity of father or grandparents – Custody with father held to be legal and in the best interest of the child – Only visitation rights to mother upheld [Paras 17–18.1].

Conduct of Mother – Abandonment of Child – Evidence including Ex.P6 showed wife voluntarily relinquished custody of minor child during conciliation proceedings – Lack of emotional attachment and unwillingness to care for child established – Subsequent custody proceedings held not bona fide [Paras 13.2–13.6, 17].

Maintenance – Interim and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Husband earning Rs.2,14,398/- per month and wife earning Rs.38,200/- per month – Husband bearing responsibility of minor child and aged parents – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month reasonable and proportionate – No material change in circumstances shown – Maintenance order upheld [Paras 21–22].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Appellate court declined to reappreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 14–16, 24].

Decision: MFA No. 645 of 2024, MFA No. 546 of 2024 and MFA No. 1681 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04/12/2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Custody of minor child with father confirmed – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month sustained – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 24].

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

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.

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.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

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.