RTI Disclosure – Applicability of Exemptions – SEBI's Fiduciary Duty – CIC Order Modified – Court held SEBI justified in denying information relating to internal file notings and correspondence on framing policies for appointment of Public Interest Directors (PIDs) under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act since such information is held in fiduciary capacity – Disclosure of such policy deliberations is exempt from RTI when obtained in confidence without larger public interest warranting disclosure [Paras 52-54].

Third Party Information – Section 11 of RTI – Disclosure Subject to Hearing of Affected Parties – CIC Order Partially Set Aside – For information on selected and rejected candidates for PID appointments and annual inspection reports, the Court remanded the matter to the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, to comply with Section 11 RTI procedure, granting opportunity to third parties to contest disclosure before decision is taken – CIC erred in ordering disclosure without compliance with mandatory Section 11 procedure [Paras 55-60].

Differentiation between Bank and Stock Exchange Regulation – Jayantilal N Mistry Distinction – Court clarified that the decision in Jayantilal N Mistry concerning disclosure of RBI inspection reports does not mechanically apply to SEBI inspections of stock exchanges – Due to nature of sensitive market information and regulatory dynamics, inspection reports concerning stock exchanges require distinct consideration and invocation of Section 11 safeguards [Paras 63-65].

Vague RTI Queries – Duty of Specificity – Queries for General Information Rejected – The Court refused to interfere with CIC's dismissal of vague queries seeking general inspection of files, noting that RTI Act requires requests to be made with reasonable precision to avoid disproportionate diversion of public resources – CPIO cannot be burdened with fishing or roving inquiries lacking specificity [Paras 66-67].

Decision – Partial Remand to CPIO – Court upheld CIC's decision on queries 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 – Set aside CIC's order on queries 3, 4, and 5 – Directed CPIO to consider those afresh after following due procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act, ensuring affected third parties' participation – Writ petitions of SEBI partly allowed and partly rejected; Mr. Agarwal’s petitions partly allowed, partly dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 68].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Recruitment – Minimum Qualifying Speed in Shorthand Test – Rule 10 of 1986 Rules – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner applied for Stenographer Grade-III post under PH category, secured 121.142 marks including shorthand, speed and efficiency tests – Failed to meet mandatory speed of 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand test (secured only 50.167 WPM) – Held: Mere aggregate marks irrelevant without meeting mandatory qualification—Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 13].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule – Mandatory Requirement Cannot Be Diluted – Rule 10 Interpretation – The petitioner argued for reading 'must have passed' as 'might have passed'—Court rejected contention citing clear and unambiguous language of Rule 10 prescribing passing speed of 70 WPM – Applied literal interpretation principle emphasizing legislative intent and statutory compliance—Held: No scope for dilution of mandatory eligibility criteria [Paras 10, 14-15].

Recruitment Process – Vacancy Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Even if category vacancies remained unfilled, absence of requisite qualification disqualifies petitioner – Held: Petitioner has no vested right to appointment merely because of vacant posts or higher marks – Eligibility conditions sacrosanct [Paras 16].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Guidelines on Statutory Interpretation – Court relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja case affirming that clear statutory mandates must be implemented without judicial alteration—Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutes under guise of interpretation [Para 15].

Decision – Eligibility Deficiency Fatal – Petition Rejected – Petitioner’s failure to achieve minimum shorthand speed rendered him ineligible—Petition dismissed, no interference warranted under writ jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Bail – Non-appearance of Accused – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Bail Restored – The appellants, accused under Section 353 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, were earlier released on regular bail but remanded to custody due to non-appearance on a hearing date – High Court held absence was not deliberate, matter was pending for charge framing, and appellants were already on bail – Keeping them in custody for single absence unjustified – Bail restored subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Non-Bailable Warrant – Non-Appearance on Charge Hearing Date – Bail Revocation Improper – The trial court issued NBWs for the appellants’ absence without recording reasons or considering whether their presence was essential for charge hearing – High Court set aside order, held framing of charges does not mandatorily require accused’s personal appearance if duly represented – Orders quashed and bail granted [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Custody – Exercise of Discretion – Rejection of Bail Set Aside – High Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously considering case stage, nature of allegations, and absence history – Found that continued custody of appellants was unwarranted given prior bail and stage of proceedings – Orders under challenge set aside [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Appeals Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the rejection order, and granted bail to the appellants on execution of personal bonds with sureties – Ordered closure of all pending miscellaneous petitions [Para 7].

POCSO – DNA Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – The prosecutrix and her family turned hostile and denied sexual assault – DNA report (Ex.P33) confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child – Held: DNA evidence is expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot alone establish guilt without corroboration – Hostile testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Trial court rightly acquitted the accused [Paras 6–10, 16].

Evidentiary Value – DNA Profiling – Limitations of Sole Reliance – The Court emphasized that while DNA reports are strong indicators of biological relationship, they are not infallible and must be weighed with caution – DNA evidence alone cannot override direct oral evidence especially when it contradicts the scientific conclusion – Held: In criminal jurisprudence, conviction must rest on clear, cogent and consistent evidence – DNA report without supporting testimony fails that test [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Review Limited – The Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or perverse – Since the trial court had taken a plausible and reasoned view, the High Court declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court held that DNA evidence, though indicating biological paternity, could not solely sustain a conviction under POCSO and IPC when the prosecutrix and witnesses denied sexual assault – The trial court’s judgment was found to be a plausible and legally sound conclusion based on available evidence – No interference warranted in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].

Taxation Law - Municipal Property Tax – Mandatory Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Sections 233 and 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 – Demand Notices Quashed – The Court held that the demand notices issued by the Municipality for property tax arrears were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 233 of the Act and Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules – The notifications mandatorily required under Rule 4(4) (regarding publication of basic property tax notifications) and Rule 10 (calling for self-assessment returns) were not issued in the manner prescribed – Held: Absence of such notifications renders any subsequent levy illegal and without authority of law [Paras 3, 9-13, 27].

Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Taxation Without Authority of Law – Demand Notices Held Unconstitutional – The Court reaffirmed the principle that taxes cannot be collected without authority of law – Non-compliance with the statutory mandate under the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules led to the conclusion that the property tax arrears were levied without lawful authority – Held: Demand notices are invalid being violative of Article 265 of the Constitution [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Alternative Remedy – Inapplicability When Levy Itself Is Non-Est – The Court rejected the Municipality's argument that the respondents ought to have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Rule 16(4) of the 2011 Rules – Held: Where the levy itself is non-existent in law, the existence of an appellate remedy is irrelevant – Tax demand set aside as a jurisdictional error [Paras 13].

Culture of Justification – Doctrine of Reasonableness and Fairness in State Action – The Court emphasized the need for tax authorities to adhere to a 'culture of justification' where any demand on citizens must be supported by legal authority and due process – Arbitrary demands without adherence to mandatory procedures offend constitutional guarantees [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Dismissed – Demand Notices Invalidated – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the Perinthalmanna Municipality, and directed that any future assessment or demand for property tax must comply strictly with the statutory framework laid down in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the 2011 Rules [Paras 12-13, 27].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Fir and Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Vague and General Allegations Against Husband’s Relatives – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners, relatives-in-law residing separately, challenged FIR and charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC – Allegations against them found to be vague, omnibus, without specific details of cruelty or harassment – Complainant herself restricted allegations under Domestic Violence Act only against husband, no mention of petitioners therein – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, quashing warranted [Paras 5-18].

Omnibus Allegations – Absence of Specific Role – No Prima Facie Case – Quashing Justified – FIR and Section 161 CrPC statements lacked specific incidents or roles attributable to petitioners – Injury report did not implicate petitioners – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in absence of specific, concrete allegations; continuance of trial against petitioners unjustified [Paras 12-17].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Inherent Powers – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC applying Bhajan Lal categories (1, 3, and 5) where allegations even if taken at face value did not constitute offence against petitioners – Held: Exercise of inherent power justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 19-20].

No Prejudice to Husband’s Trial – Proceedings Against Husband Unaffected – Court clarified that quashing order applies only to present petitioners; proceedings against husband to continue independently on merits before the trial court [Para 23].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Charge-sheet and all proceedings arising out of Amdanga P.S. Case No. 160/2020 quashed against petitioners; CRR allowed [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Company Law - Company Winding Up – Inability to Pay Debt – Section 433(e) of Companies Act – Winding Up Confirmed – Appeal dismissed - The appellant challenged the winding up order on grounds of disputed liability and acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Execution of demand promissory note admitting debt, absence of timely dispute, and decree passed in Summary Suit against appellant demonstrated liability and inability to pay – Belated disputes raised only in winding up reply were not bona fide – Court upheld winding up in public interest to prevent misuse of corporate status against creditors [Paras 14-39].

Criminal Acquittal vs Civil Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – No Effect on Civil Proceedings – The Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings based on proof beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve civil liability determined on preponderance of probability – Mere acquittal under Section 138 NI Act does not nullify acknowledged debt or decree obtained in civil court – Civil liability established through decree and demand promissory note prevails [Paras 30-31].

Late Raising of Disputes – Absence of Prior Denial of Liability – Conduct Indicative of Inability to Pay – The Court observed that disputes regarding debt quantum were raised for the first time after issuance of winding up notice, with no prior objection despite several communications – Such conduct was held to be an afterthought and an attempt to evade legitimate dues, justifying the winding up under Section 433(e) [Paras 22-24, 28].

Effect of Summary Decree – Conclusive Evidence of Liability – Appeal Dismissed – The Court noted that appellant did not challenge or satisfy the decree passed in Summary Suit based on same transactions – Existence of decree is decisive of indebtedness and inability to pay – Reiterated principle that companies unable to pay their debts should be wound up to protect future creditors [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Winding Up Confirmed – Court found no merit in appeal – Decreed debt remained unpaid, appellant had ceased business activities and had no assets – Winding up confirmed to prevent further creditor prejudice – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 39-40].