Review Petition – Jurisdictional Error – Review Allowed – Petitioners sought review of common order dismissing writ petitions challenging the criminal proceedings under UAPA – This Court noticed that as per Section 21(2) of NIA Act, all such matters ought to be heard by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge – Held: Since jurisdictional error goes to the root of the matter, review is maintainable and review petitions allowed [Paras 5-8].

Scope of Review – Error Apparent on Record – Jurisdictional Error Constitutes Sufficient Ground – Referring to Kamalesh Verma vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Court held that review lies when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reasons – Held: Jurisdictional mistake satisfies this condition, warranting restoration of writ petitions [Para 6].

NIA Act – Section 21(2) – Mandatory Requirement of Division Bench – Review Bench relied on Mastiguda Aboobacker vs. NIA, 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159 and other precedents holding that under Section 21(2) of the NIA Act, all appeals and analogous proceedings arising under NIA Act have to be heard by a Division Bench – Held: Present cases being UAPA matters squarely fall within Section 21(2) mandate [Paras 7-8].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Not Excluded by NIA Act – Following Kerala Full Bench view, the Court reiterated that Section 482 CrPC continues to be available for NIA cases subject to routing through a Division Bench – The inherent power is not ousted by the NIA Act but must be exercised cautiously [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Review Allowed – Writ petitions restored to file and directed to be placed before Division Bench – Petitioners granted liberty to approach Division Bench for appropriate relief [Para 8].

Limitation – Applicability of Extended Limitation due to COVID-19 – Petition and Appeal held to be within time - Appellant’s original petition filed during the Covid-19 limitation relaxation period as per Supreme Court directions – The Appeal filed within 90 days as provided by Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also within limitation despite Section 19(3) of Family Courts Act prescribing a shorter limitation – Appeal held to be maintainable [Paras 15-23].

Customary Divorce – Burden of Proof – Customary Divorce not Proved – Respondent failed to lead any documentary or oral evidence to establish customary divorce from first wife as required under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Mere pleading without proof rejected – The Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the existence and validity of customary divorce – Appellant entitled to succeed on this ground [Paras 24-39].

Impleadment of First Wife – Rule 8 of the Rules Under Hindu Marriage Act – Impleadment Not Mandatory – Court held that the first wife need not be impleaded as a co-respondent since the question was one of legal validity of marriage and not of her personal rights – The Trial Court's reliance on non-impleadment was misplaced – Appellant’s petition not defective for want of co-respondent [Paras 40-52].

Maintenance/Alimony – Maintainability of Claim by Second Wife – Though Appellant did not press for alimony, Court clarified that second wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even where the marriage is declared void – Reference made to Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 – The Trial Court’s contrary view was incorrect [Para 53].

Offence of Rape – Misconception of Marriage – Respondent liable under Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS – Consent of appellant obtained on mistaken belief of valid marriage – Respondent’s conduct falls under ‘Fourthly’ clause of Section 375 IPC and Section 63(d)(iv) of BNS – Appellant’s mistaken belief of lawful marriage proved – Respondent committed rape punishable under Section 375/376 IPC and corresponding BNS provisions [Paras 54-58].

Desertion – Respondent’s Conduct Amounts to Desertion – Respondent failed to prosecute his restitution petition and remained unrepresented before the High Court despite due service – Court concluded that Respondent deserted the appellant and wilfully abstained from proceedings [Paras 59-62].

Trial Court Judgment – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – Trial Court wrongly presumed appellant’s knowledge of first marriage, failed to frame necessary issues, and misapplied rules on maintenance and impleadment – Findings were contrary to settled law and unsupported by evidence – Impugned order dated 19.11.2024 set aside and appeal allowed [Paras 63-72].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Defamation – Reporting Public Figure’s Statement – Fair and Truthful Reporting – Summoning Set Aside - Petitioners being editors and journalists had truthfully reported the statement made by MP Bhagwant Mann regarding alleged monetary inducement to the complainant MLA – Court held that the news report merely reproduced the speech without distortion and lacked any independent imputation by petitioners – Mens rea for defamation absent – Petitioners’ actions fall under First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Summoning order quashed [Paras 9-13].

Section 499 IPC – Requirement of Intention or Knowledge to Defame – Not Satisfied – Proceedings Quashed - Held: Essential ingredients of defamation include intention, knowledge or reasonable belief of harming reputation – No such material found in the complaint or preliminary evidence against petitioners – Magistrate's finding without evidentiary basis – Summoning order is unsustainable [Paras 9-11].

First Exception to Section 499 IPC – Accurate Reporting of True Statement in Public Interest – Journalistic Protection Available - Reporting of public figures’ statements without embellishment or distortion, when relevant to public interest, is protected – Petitioners’ act of publishing unaltered version of MP's statement falls within legal protection – No offence made out [Paras 8-12].

Quashing of Proceedings – Power under Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Abuse of Process Prevented - In the absence of essential ingredients of defamation, summoning petitioners to trial would result in abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Complaint and proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Complaint and Summoning Order Quashed – Bail/Surety Discharged [Para 13].

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].

Industrial Dispute – Reference by Appropriate Government – Reference Held Defective – The court held that while referring the industrial dispute, the Appropriate Government worded the reference in a manner suggesting a pre-declared conclusion that the contract system is “sham and bogus” – This prejudiced the adjudication and restricted the Industrial Tribunal from independently deciding the existence and validity of the contract – Held: Reference suffers from a material infirmity and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-20].

Binding Settlements – Effect of Existing Long-Term Settlements – Validity Unaffected – The existence of prior settlements under Sections 12(3) and 2(p) of the I.D. Act between the contractors and the unions, which were not challenged earlier, cannot operate as an absolute bar to raising a fresh dispute – However, the factual existence of such settlements is relevant for the tribunal in deciding the sham contract issue and entitlement to benefits – Held: Previous settlements alone cannot preclude adjudication if a dispute exists [Paras 9.3-10.4].

Scope of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Limited by Order of Reference – Tribunal Cannot Go Beyond the Reference – The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the points specifically referred and matters incidental thereto – A reference which pre-supposes the outcome of disputed facts like the existence of sham contracts is legally unsustainable – Such determination must be left open for full adjudication by the Tribunal based on evidence [Paras 18-20].

Employer-Employee Relationship – To Be Determined by Tribunal – The Court clarified that whether the contract system is genuine or sham and whether the workers are employees of the petitioner or the contractors is a pure question of fact and cannot be predetermined by the Appropriate Government – The Tribunal is the competent authority to decide this issue after trial [Paras 17-18].

Final Decision – Reference Order Set Aside – The Court quashed the impugned reference orders passed on 18.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 – Directed the Appropriate Government to re-frame the reference terms properly without pre-judging the issue within 45 days – Writ Petitions disposed accordingly [Paras 20-22].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Civil Writ - Recruitment – Eligibility Criteria – One-Year LLM Degree – Arbitrary Exclusion – Provisional Selection List Quashed – Petitioner, though securing first rank in written exam, excluded on ground that her LLM was of one-year duration – Notification did not specify LLM must be of two-year duration – Held: Arbitrary to exclude candidate where UGC recognizes one-year LLM; No valid basis for discrimination between equivalent courses [Paras 5–11].

UGC Recognition – One-Year LLM Programme – Valid for Public Appointments – LLM from National Law School, Bangalore, a reputed institution – UGC approval suffices – Petitioner eligible as per existing norms – Court held that once accepted for Ph.D. enrolment, cannot be disqualified for public post [Paras 7–13].

Judicial Precedents – Division Bench Binding – Clarified Educational Patterns – Followed in Parandhaman and Suganya Jeba Sarojini cases – Held: Educational pattern (10+2+5+1) valid; one-year LLM cannot be disqualified on this basis – Pattern-based disqualification without statutory backing is untenable [Paras 8–10].

Discrimination in Selection – Merit Ignored – Violation of Fairness – Petitioner outranked selected candidates yet excluded due to non-existent restriction – Held: Such exclusion violates principles of merit and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 11–14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Selection List Quashed – Court directed appointment of petitioner with retrospective notional seniority and all consequential service and monetary benefits – Respondents directed to act within eight weeks [Paras 15–16].
 

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Standard of Proof – Appeal Dismissed - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen theory, police dog trail, accused’s conduct, and past misconduct – The minor witness (P.W.2) who initially supported the last-seen theory turned hostile and admitted inability to identify accused due to darkness – The Court held that the last-seen theory is a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated with additional material which was lacking in the present case – Absence of proximity in time between the alleged last-seen incident and the recovery of the dead body breaks the necessary chain of circumstances [Paras 13-14].

Police Dog Evidence – Unreliable Without Corroboration – Not Sufficient for Conviction - The Court noted that no evidence was led regarding the training, credibility, or procedural safeguards followed in using the police dog – Without forensic corroboration or supporting evidence, the police dog’s tracking trail was held to be insufficient and speculative to link the accused to the crime [Paras 17-18].

Past Conduct and Bad Character – Cannot Substitute Proof of Present Offence – The prosecution sought to rely on prior allegations of misconduct against Respondent No.1, including unproven past instances of rape within the village – The Court held that prior bad character, in the absence of a clear nexus to the current offence, cannot substitute for direct or circumstantial proof linking the accused to the charged crime [Para 15].

Suspicious Behaviour – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – Requires Conclusive Chain – The accused’s non-participation in the search, distracted demeanor, and remarks made during the search were deemed inadequate in the absence of other incriminating evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Such behaviour may be inappropriate but does not constitute legal proof [Para 16].

Forensic Evidence – Absence of Blood, Semen, or Biological Link – Failure of Prosecution – The Court noted that the chemical examination report (Ext.13) did not reveal any incriminating material on the seized articles or clothing of the accused – The lack of scientific evidence further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 19].

Acquittal Upheld – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a cogent, credible, and continuous chain of circumstances against Respondents – Acquittal recorded by the trial court was upheld and the leave to appeal was refused [Paras 20-22].