Transgender & Intersex Persons Policy – Implementation & Reforms – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 – Court Directions Issued – In writ petition concerning rights of transgender persons, the Court noted with appreciation the State’s notification of the Tamil Nadu State Policy for Transgender Persons, 2025 – Considered community suggestions on horizontal reservation, representation in monitoring committees, marriage registration, recognition of domestic partnerships, and renaming of policy – Directed State to take early decision on reservation; ensure representation of trans women, trans men, and intersex persons in district/state committees; issue directions to Registrars for smooth marriage registration; and consider renaming policy to reflect transgender and intersex focus – Also urged framing of LGBQA+ policy at the earliest – Ordered relevant departments to file status reports on NCERT module and medical curriculum sensitisation – Matter posted for further orders [Paras 1-10, 14].

Reservation – Clause 3.7 of Policy – Court noted ambiguity on whether horizontal reservation in education and public employment is envisaged – Directed Government to decide to avoid repeated litigation [Para 4].

Monitoring Committees – Representation Mandated – Directed State to ensure district and state-level committees under the policy include at least one trans woman, one trans man, and one intersex person – Necessary notifications to be issued for effective functioning [Para 5].

Marriage of Transgender Persons – Apex Court Recognition – Directed State to issue instructions to Registrars for legal sanction and registration of such marriages in line with NALSA and Arunkumar rulings [Para 6].

Recognition of Domestic Partnerships – Suggested that State provide for deeds of familial association or civil unions to safeguard rights where succession laws are silent [Para 7].

Policy Title – Court observed that renaming to “Transgender and Intersex Persons Policy” may better reflect intent and community identity [Para 8].

Decision:Court issued directions to Government to consider and implement community suggestions, take decisions on reservation and policy amendments, ensure committee representation, and expedite framing of LGBQA+ policy – Status reports directed – Matter adjourned to 15.09.2025 for further orders [Paras 4-10, 14].

Matrimonial Law - Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings/Case – Grounds of Inconvenience and Financial Hardship – Application Rejected – The Applicant-wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings from Family Court, Pune to Kalamb citing health issues, distance, and financial constraints – Held: The Applicant had appeared in the Pune Court on several occasions, was represented by counsel, and had failed to avail video conferencing facilities – Her conduct, including repeated absences and delay in filing pleadings, suggested an attempt to delay the trial – Transfer denied [Paras 1-7, 13-20].

Video Conferencing as an Alternative – Considered by Court – Liberty Granted – Though physical transfer was refused, the Court clarified that the Applicant may approach the Family Court, Pune for permission to appear via video conferencing – Family Court directed to consider such application independently – Further, the Respondent directed to pay ₹5,000 per physical appearance if personal presence is required [Paras 22-23].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Transfer Petition Filed at Final Hearing Stage – Application Lacked Bona Fides – Held: The Applicant remained absent for long durations, failed to cross-examine the Respondent despite opportunities, and delayed the matter for over four years – Her conduct showed a clear intent to delay adjudication – The allegations of hardship were found vague and unsubstantiated – Petition dismissed as abuse of process [Paras 14-20].

Balance of Convenience – Greater Hardship to Respondent – Refusal to Transfer – The Respondent was found to be the sole caregiver of his ailing mother, employed in a private job, and at risk of professional consequences due to travel – The Court held that inconvenience to Respondent outweighed that of the Applicant – Transfer not warranted [Paras 9-11, 20].

Final Decision – Transfer Application Dismissed – Family Court to Expedite Trial – Held: Application lacked merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs – Family Court, Pune directed to conclude proceedings preferably within three months of order – All parties directed to act on authenticated copy of order [Paras 21, 24-25].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Fatal Accident – Pillion rider – Widow mother of deceased filed claim for Rs.15 lakhs – Tribunal awarded Rs.23,38,000/- with 7.5% interest – Tribunal wrongly deducted ½ of income instead of correct deduction method – High Court fixed monthly income at Rs.16,000/- based on bank statement – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction of ½ applied as per Supreme Court’s direction in Pranay Sethi – Revised compensation for loss of dependency computed as Rs.24,19,200/- – No change in award under other heads – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.24,89,200/- with same interest rate – Insurance company directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 8 weeks – No interest payable for delay in filing the appeal [Paras 2, 5, 9–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Compensation enhanced from Rs.23,38,000/- to Rs.24,89,200/- – Rate of interest at 7.5% per annum maintained – Typographical corrections made vide order dated 11/11/2025.

Criminal Law - NDPS – Superdari of Vehicle – Release Ordered – Long Pendency and Vehicle Devaluation Considered – The petitioner sought release of his vehicle (Innova car) on superdari, which had been seized in connection with an NDPS case where 2.6 kg of opium was recovered – Though petitioner was found in the vehicle, trial was pending and vehicle had remained in custody for over 3½ years – Held: Continued impoundment would cause irreversible loss due to weather exposure – Order rejecting superdari set aside – Vehicle directed to be released to registered owner with conditions [Paras 1-3, 6-7].

Property Release – No Adjudication on Guilt – Interim Custody Allowed – The Court emphasized that no court had found the petitioner guilty yet, and detention of the vehicle does not serve purpose while ownership was not in dispute – Release does not affect trial rights – Petitioner directed not to sell or alter the vehicle’s condition [Paras 3, 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Vehicle Ordered to be Released on Superdari – Subject to furnishing bond and maintaining vehicle condition [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Conviction – Disqualification under Companies Act – Application Dismissed – The appellant was convicted under Sections 120B, 420, and 471 IPC for misrepresentations made before government authorities to secure coal block allocation – He sought stay of conviction to avoid disqualification under Section 196(3)(d) of the Companies Act, 2013 – Held: No exceptional circumstance shown to warrant suspension of conviction – Appellant is also facing prosecution in another coal scam case – Conviction upheld at this stage [Paras 1–3, 27–36].

Irreversible Consequences – Nature of Disqualification – Not an Exceptional Case – The appellant argued that disqualification from his position as Managing Director of a public company would lead to irreversible consequences – Court held that conviction-related disqualification under Companies Act alone does not amount to exceptional hardship – Held: Such consequence is statutory and not extraordinary in the present context [Paras 21–24, 32–33].

Public Interest – Coal Block Scam as Distinct Class – Wider Ramifications Considered – Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Girish Kumar Suneja and Manohar Lal Sharma, Court held that coal block allocation cases form a distinct and serious category involving widespread public interest – The appellant’s role and benefit from fraudulent documents warranted denial of relief under Section 389(1) CrPC – Held: No stay of conviction justified [Paras 15, 35–36].

Suspension of Sentence – Granted on Parity with Co-Convict – Considering the appellant’s age, clean record, family circumstances, compliance with earlier conditions, and parity with Manoj Kumar Jayaswal (co-convict whose sentence was suspended), Court suspended the sentence and granted bail – Appellant directed not to leave India without permission and to furnish bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety [Paras 38–40].

Decision – Stay of conviction rejected; sentence suspended – Held: Application partly allowed – While consequences of conviction under Companies Act are recognized, present case lacks the exceptional circumstances required to stay conviction – Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal [Paras 37–40].

Service Law – Police Recruitment – Concealment of Criminal Case – Appointment Denied – Justified - Petitioner applied for the post of Constable and was placed in the waiting list after clearing all stages – During police verification, it was found that he was facing an FIR at the time of application which he failed to disclose – Though the FIR was later quashed on compromise, concealment at the time of application was material – Held: Suppression of pending criminal case in recruitment process justified rejection of appointment – Petition dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Delay in Appointment – Passage of Time – Physical Fitness Consideration – Constable Post Requires Current Fitness - Though petitioner applied in 2011 and approached Court in 2013, more than a decade had passed by the time of decision – Held: Constable post demands current physical and mental fitness – Fitness cannot be presumed after 13 years – Delay reinforces dismissal of claim [Para 7].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Concealment of material facts and inordinate delay in asserting claim held sufficient to deny relief – Petition dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 6-8].

Service Law – Regularization – Long-Term Engagement Without Absorption – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner claimed continuous service under BCCL since 1979 as a piece-rated worker and sought regularization and pensionary benefits – Held: There was no official appointment or evidence of sanctioned post – Despite long engagement, petitioner failed to demonstrate legal entitlement to regularization – Supreme Court rulings cited that length of service alone does not confer right to regularization in absence of procedural compliance [Paras 4–6, 10–12].

Pension and Retirement Benefits – Claim Without Formal Employment – Denied – The petitioner, not being a regular employee, was held not entitled to pensionary or retirement benefits – Held: Service was rendered de hors the rules and outside the framework of sanctioned post – Consequently, there exists no enforceable legal right to claim pension – Reliance placed on precedent that mere continuity of service cannot override statutory requirements [Paras 8–11].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – No Mandamus in Absence of Legal Right – Petition Under Article 226 Dismissed – The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of petitioner who failed to establish any statutory or constitutional violation – Held: Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce non-existent rights – Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked merely on humanitarian grounds without legal foundation [Paras 10–12].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court held that in the absence of a legal appointment or post, no relief could be granted – Petitioner’s prayer for regularization and pension rejected [Para 12].

Civil Law - Execution of Decree – Section 51, Order 21 Rule 32, Order 17 of the CPC - Inordinate Delay – Judicial Dereliction – Despite decree being passed in 2014 and confirmed in RSA in 2017, execution filed in 2015 remained unresolved till 2025 – Multiple extension requests filed by Executing Court citing administrative difficulties and State non-cooperation – Held: Conduct reflects abdication of judicial duty and disregard of Supreme Court’s mandate in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi – Executing Court directed to complete execution within two months – No further extension to be granted [Paras 1-2, 33-36, 49-52].

Executing Court Jurisdiction – Cannot Reopen Merits – Respondent-State and Executing Court attempted to revisit settled merits of the decree during execution proceedings – Held: Such action is impermissible under Section 47 CPC – Executing Court bound to execute decree as is, without reappreciation of merits – Affidavit filed by State officials amounted to re-arguing dismissed RSA and reflects deliberate evasion [Paras 28, 38].

State Conduct – Delay by Design – Affidavits by Government Officers Citing Unrelated Grounds – Officers failed to comply with decree despite repeated High Court orders – Held: Conduct of the State in filing argumentative affidavits instead of taking steps for compliance shows intent to delay and obstruct execution – Such behaviour undermines public confidence in rule of law and invites judicial scrutiny [Paras 26-28, 32, 35].

Supreme Court Mandate – Six-Month Timeline in Execution – As per directions in Rahul S. Shah’s case, execution proceedings must be concluded within six months – Extensions beyond that only with recorded reasons – Held: Repeated delays and perfunctory reasons given by Executing Court constitute clear violation of binding precedent – Judicial officers warned against non-compliance which may amount to contempt [Paras 39-41, 44-46].

Final Directions – Compliance Mandated – District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur directed to oversee immediate execution – Executing Court ordered to conclude proceedings within two months from date of order, on a day-to-day basis – Order to be circulated to all District and Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh for strict compliance with Rahul S. Shah guidelines – Warning of contempt in case of non-compliance [Paras 50-53].

Anticipatory Bail – Complaint Case – Issuance of Summons – Section 482 BNSS – Application Not Maintainable – The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case alleging a non-bailable offence on the ground that summons had been issued against him – The Court examined the scope of Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.), the meaning of “reason to believe” under Section 2(29) BNS, and the distinction between arrest and custody – Held: Mere issuance of summons in a complaint case does not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest by police without warrant, and hence anticipatory bail is not maintainable – Apprehension under Section 482 BNSS must relate to arbitrary or unwanted arrest by police or prosecuting agencies, not custody taken by the court on appearance – Application rejected [Paras 1–3, 27–33].

Bailable Warrant in Complaint Case – Section 482 BNSS – Not Maintainable – In complaint cases where bailable warrant is issued, the accused is entitled to bail upon readiness to furnish it – Hence, no apprehension of arrest or detention arises to sustain anticipatory bail [Para 32(ii)].

Non-Bailable Warrant/Proclamation – Exception – Section 482 BNSS – Ordinarily Not Maintainable – Following Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 202), anticipatory bail can be granted in such cases only in extreme, exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice [Para 32(iii)].

Decision – Present case involved only issuance of summons dated 23.08.2022 without any bailable/non-bailable warrant – Held: Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant permitted to seek regular bail within 15 days [Paras 33–35].