Writ of Mandamus – Section 67B of the Information Technology Act - Child Pornography Allegation – Teaser of Movie "Bad Girl" on YouTube – Direction Issued for Removal – Petitioners alleged that the teaser of a Tamil film hosted on YouTube contains child pornographic and obscene content in violation of child protection laws – Despite filing complaints with relevant authorities, no timely action was taken – Held: State and statutory authorities failed to act despite receiving complaints – Court directed the Union Government to issue appropriate orders for removal of the content and for the Women and Child Commissions to monitor the matter – Criminal proceedings not directed due to lack of specific accused details – Writ petition allowed with directions [Paras 1–14].

Child Protection – State Obligation under Article 39(f) and Article 45 – Responsibility Affirmed – The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the State to safeguard the moral and emotional well-being of children – Held: Online dissemination of sexually inappropriate material impacts children's minds – Authorities must act proactively to protect young viewers – Court found failure to act contrary to constitutional duties [Paras 7–11].

Criminal Prosecution – No Direction for FIR – Lack of Specific Allegations – Petitioners sought initiation of criminal proceedings under POCSO and POSH Acts – Held: Court declined to issue direction for prosecution since names of accused and full facts were not provided – Petitioners are at liberty to file a complaint before competent authorities [Para 13].

Duty of Online Platforms – Accessibility of Obscene Content – YouTube Not Impleaded – Not Fatal – Though YouTube was not made a party, the Court held that the Union Government has authority to direct removal of content under IT laws – Held: First respondent to act and issue directions within one month to remove the obscene teaser and related content [Paras 12–13].

Civil Law - Negligence – Electrocution Death – Damages - Liability under Fatal Accidents Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellants, legal heirs of deceased Naresh Kumar, sought damages for his death caused by electrocution from a live electric wire on a pole, alleging negligence on part of the electricity board in maintaining safety of electric lines – The Trial Court granted ₹2 lakhs as damages but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree citing lack of conclusive evidence and attributing contributory negligence to the deceased – The High Court, on appreciation of witness testimony, postmortem and viscera reports, held that death was due to electrocution caused by negligent maintenance of electric wires – The absence of burn marks was held not decisive against electrocution in light of medical jurisprudence – No contributory negligence was found on part of the deceased – Held: The electricity department is responsible to ensure public safety, and the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the decree – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside and the Trial Court decree is restored, awarding compensation to the appellants [Paras 4-15].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Escalated to Criminal Litigation – Supreme Court Orders Executed – Conditional Bail Granted – Petitioners involved in property dispute culminating before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27400 of 2023 sought pre-arrest bail in cross criminal cases registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging mutual criminal trespass and violence after property possession was delivered pursuant to Supreme Court orders – Held: Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners in Cr.P.Nos.5730/2025 and 5860/2025 as there was no prima facie evidence of direct involvement, but rejected for petitioner in Cr.P.No.5861/2025 (A1) in view of previous criminal antecedents, credible allegations of criminal conduct, and statements implicating him in engaging antisocial elements – Court considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1 regarding grant of anticipatory bail and the nature of allegations – Custodial interrogation held necessary for certain accused, pre-arrest bail allowed/disallowed accordingly [Paras 16-34].

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Challenge to Declaration and Possession Decree – Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal Dismissed – In a property dispute where the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed under a Lucky Dip Scheme from defendants 1 and 2, the trial court and first appellate court concurrently decreed declaration of title and recovery of possession – The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in the absence of a substantial question of law – Execution of sale deed, possession of property, and acts of defendants in forming a layout and appointing agents stood proved on record – Held: No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC, second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 1-28].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – The High Court reiterated that second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and courts should not reappreciate facts already concluded by lower courts – Findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are binding in second appeal – Mere alternative view or factual dispute does not constitute a substantial question of law [Paras 15-17].

Execution of Sale Deed – Validity – Payment of Consideration – Sale Cannot Be Invalidated – The court emphasized that even in cases where full sale consideration is disputed, the registered sale deed passes valid title unless legally set aside – Law settled that non-payment of full consideration does not invalidate a registered sale transaction [Para 25].

Title and Possession – Right to Recovery of Possession – Registered Sale Deed Upheld – The plaintiff’s claim of ownership and right to possession was upheld on the basis of registered sale deed, non-dispute of execution, and established possession prior to unlawful dispossession by defendants – Relief granted against all defendants including agents involved in the transaction [Paras 19-24].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed confirming concurrent decrees of trial and appellate courts in favour of the plaintiff – No substantial question of law found – No costs awarded [Paras 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Closure of Evidence – Opportunity Granted Subject to Costs – Revision Partly Allowed – The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order closing evidence after petitioner failed to lead entire evidence, citing communication gap with counsel – The High Court found merit in granting limited indulgence due to the nature of the suit (possession and injunction) where no interim injunction existed – Held: Petitioner granted two effective opportunities to complete evidence subject to deposit of ₹30,000/- as costs payable to respondents [Paras 1-3].

Prejudice in Possession Suit – No Injunction in Favour of Petitioner – Delay Could Be Prejudicial – The Court noted absence of any interim relief in petitioner’s favour, which made delay detrimental to petitioner’s interests – Held: Opportunity granted on payment of costs to avoid irreparable prejudice [Para 3].

No Notice Issued to Respondents – Expeditious Disposal Considered Paramount – The Court refrained from issuing notice of motion to respondents to avoid further delay in suit proceedings and unwarranted expenses for respondents – Held: Order subject to respondents’ right to seek recall if any false statement detected [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Order Closing Evidence Set Aside – Costs Imposed – The Court allowed the revision petition partly, set aside the order closing evidence, and allowed two opportunities to lead evidence at petitioner’s responsibility, subject to deposit of ₹30,000/- payable equally to respondents, failing which the petition to stand dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Criminal Law – Default Bail - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 29(1), 36A(4), 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act - Extension of Statutory Remand Period – Requirement of Specific Reasons – Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Extension Order Set Aside – The petitioner was arrested in connection with seizure of commercial quantity of methamphetamine and was in custody beyond 180 days – The Special Court extended remand without specific reasons in the Public Prosecutor’s report – Held: Report failed to disclose appreciable progress of investigation or compelling reasons for continued custody – Extension of custody beyond 180 days declared unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-12].

Role of Public Prosecutor – Mandatory Independent Application of Mind – Under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act, Public Prosecutor must independently evaluate the investigation status – In the absence of reasons in the Prosecutor’s report, continued custody of accused is unjustified – Courts cannot mechanically extend custody on vague or routine grounds – Reference made to Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 and Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, NCB, (2009) 17 SCC 631 [Paras 7-9].

Default Bail – Right to Statutory Bail under NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The petitioner, having completed 180 days in custody without valid extension, entitled to default bail – Further, the Court satisfied twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act, namely reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Order extending time for filing final report beyond 180 days quashed – Petitioner granted bail on execution of bond and strict conditions including regular reporting to police, prohibition on tampering evidence, and presence at trial – Court empowered to cancel bail in case of violation [Para 12].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Revision – Quantum of Maintenance – Sections 125 and 127 CrPC – Enhancement Granted with Increment Provision – In this batch of revisions, the wife challenged the Family Court’s order reducing her maintenance from ₹30,000/- to ₹20,000/- while the husband sought further reduction on account of his retirement – The High Court scrutinised the husband’s financial standing, including his post-retirement benefits and assets, and held that the wife’s maintenance should not be reduced below a reasonable standard of living reflective of the matrimonial lifestyle – Held: Monthly maintenance enhanced to ₹25,000/- per month with an increment of 5% every two years to balance the legitimate needs of the wife and the resources of the husband [Paras 1-30].

Maintenance Order Effective Date – No Retrospective Effect – Section 127 CrPC – The Court clarified that the direction to enhance maintenance shall be effective from the date of the Family Court’s order (30.12.2023), refusing retrospective application from the date of the husband’s retirement as claimed by the wife – Exercise of discretion upheld considering fairness and legal principles [Paras 25-27].

Income Tax Return – Not Sole Basis for Determining Income – Section 143(1) Income Tax Act – The Court observed that income tax returns alone do not reflect the actual financial capacity of the husband, especially in maintenance matters – The Court relied upon judicial precedents and considered overall financial indicators, assets, and standard of living while fixing maintenance [Paras 17-24].

Balancing Rights of Parties – Fair Maintenance to Ensure Dignity – The Court reiterated that maintenance is not a charity but a right to ensure a life of dignity for the dependent spouse, and reduced financial capacity does not negate the responsibility towards a non-earning spouse – Final maintenance set at ₹25,000/- per month with increments [Paras 1, 19, 24, 28-30].

Decision – Revisions Partly Allowed – The wife’s revision partly allowed by increasing maintenance; the husband’s revision dismissed – Maintenance fixed at ₹25,000/- per month with 5% increase every two years from 30.12.2023 – Connected applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 364A, 392, 397, 412, 34 of the IPC - Sections 25, 27, 54, 59, 30 of the Arms Act - Grant of Bail Post Recording of Key Witnesses – Section 483 BNSS – Bail Granted - The applicant, a dismissed police constable accused in a kidnapping for ransom case, sought bail after the examination of all key material witnesses – The Court noted that after completion of prosecution evidence, risk of tampering or influencing witnesses substantially reduces – Observed prolonged incarceration serves no useful purpose given pending trial duration – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9, 22-24].

Presumption of Innocence – Principle Reaffirmed – Despite the serious nature of allegations, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence and right to liberty – Referred to landmark rulings emphasizing bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Upheld that gravity of offence alone is not sufficient ground to deny bail if other safeguards exist [Paras 12-13, 23].

Contradictions in Prosecution Case – Discrepancies Noted in Recovery Evidence – The applicant pointed out inconsistencies in police records, including absence of clear CCTV identification, non-conduct of TIP, and conflicting CDR details – The Court refrained from detailed evaluation at bail stage but acknowledged contradictions in case narrative as relevant for bail consideration [Paras 6-9].

Humanitarian Considerations – Custodial Incarceration and Right to Dignity – Court highlighted applicant’s clean antecedents, status as sole breadwinner, and prolonged custody since 2021 – Cited Supreme Court’s emphasis on dignity of accused and overcrowding in jails while allowing bail – Noted the applicant’s reinstatement in service as relevant factor [Paras 4-5, 11, 14].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted with stringent conditions including personal and surety bonds, appearance before court, furnishing of contact details, no criminal indulgence, and no interference with prosecution witnesses – Safeguards balanced liberty rights with judicial control [Para 24].

Decision – Bail Granted – Application Allowed – The application for regular bail was allowed subject to conditions after considering post-evidence stage, inconsistencies in prosecution case, and humane factors favouring release – Court directed compliance with terms and communication to jail authorities [Paras 24-26].

Matrimonial Law  – Domestic Violence Act – Section 12, 19 – Illegal Possession – Police Excess – Alternative Accommodation – The High Court considered multiple connected cases concerning domestic violence, forcible possession, and right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – The Court held that forcible possession through police assistance without court order is impermissible – The wife’s right to reside in the shared household was subject to balance of rights between in-laws and aggrieved person – Given subsistence of prior marriage of the husband rendering the present marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court upheld lower court orders directing provision of equivalent alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) DV Act while condemning the illegal police action in dispossession of in-laws – The Criminal Revision was dismissed, writ petitions partially allowed, and contempt application disposed of [Paras 54-66, 69-72].

Right of Residence – Non-absolute Right – Shared Household – Section 19 DV Act – Right to residence in a shared household is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of elderly in-laws – The Court upheld the alternative accommodation arrangement for the aggrieved person while acknowledging the right of peaceful cohabitation for in-laws – Orders of CJM and Appellate Court affirmed [Paras 52-66].

Void Marriage – Section 5(i), 11 of Hindu Marriage Act – Marriage void ab initio where husband had subsisting prior marriage – Wife’s status under DV Act recognised under relationship in the nature of marriage but substantive marital rights were vitiated due to contravention of Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Consequences of void marriage addressed in residence rights under Section 19 DV Act [Paras 55-60].

Illegal Use of Police Force – Absence of Judicial Authorization – The Court deprecated the police action in forcibly granting possession without court order – Observed police acted beyond authority in forcibly dispossessing other family members – Reaffirmed individual’s right to approach courts for such relief, not through police intervention [Paras 61-63, 69-70].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Article 226 – Challenge to police atrocities – Writ petitions under Article 226 maintainable where allegations concern misuse of police power – Despite remedies under CrPC, Constitutional Court can intervene in cases of police excess and violation of civil liberties [Paras 67-70].

Criminal Revision – Residence Order – Alternative Accommodation Upheld – Criminal Revision dismissed as no irregularity found in concurrent orders directing wife to vacate shared household and reside in alternate rented accommodation arranged by husband [Paras 65-66].

Decision – Criminal Revision dismissed – Writ Petitions allowed in part – Orders of alternative accommodation affirmed – Directions issued regarding police overreach – Contempt petition disposed of without further directions [Paras 66, 71-72].