Criminal Law - Attempt to Rape - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 376 read with 511 and 342 - Appellant convicted for attempting to rape a woman in his photography studio - Prosecution alleged the appellant locked the informant inside-stripped himself-untied her salwar-and molested her while her father was made to wait outside - Trial Court awarded three years rigorous imprisonment - High Court on appeal observed that the prosecution examined only five witnesses of whom one was hostile and two were interested witnesses being parents of the victim - Significant failure of the prosecution to examine the Medical Officer to substantiate the attempt to rape and the Investigating Officer who submitted the final chargesheet - Held - In the absence of evidence of penetration even to the slightest extent or any overt act unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape-the ingredients of Section 376/511 IPC were not satisfied - the acts attributed to the appellant fell within the ambit of Section 354 IPC for outraging modesty-not attempted rape - conviction set aside as the specific charges levelled were not established beyond reasonable doubt - [Paras 1-30].

Evidence Law - Sterling Witness - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Reliability of prosecutrix - Solitary testimony of a victim is sufficient for conviction in sexual offences provided it is of sterling quality-unassailable-and inspires absolute confidence - Court must be circumspect when dealing with interested witnesses prone to exaggeration or distortion - In the present case-there was a lack of independent corroboration and medical evidence - The failure to examine the investigating officer who filed the chargesheet prejudiced the defense - Held - Where the version of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and is inconsistent with the absence of medical evidence-the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt - [Paras 17-24].

Criminal Law - Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - Delay in FIR - Allegation of 24-hour delay in registering FIR - Victim explained that the SHO initially refused to register the case despite their wait at the police station - FIR was registered the following day - Held - No question of delay on part of the prosecution when reasonable explanation for the time taken is provided through evidence - [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 31.10.2013 and order of sentence dated 01.11.2013 set aside – Appellant acquitted and discharged from bail bonds – Fine to be refunded.

Family Law - Child Custody and Guardianship - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - Admissibility of electronic evidence against the claim of privacy - Applicant-mother sought to mark WhatsApp conversations and screenshots obtained from respondent-father's mobile phone without his consent allegedly showing his drug use and unfitness as a guardian - Respondent-father objected on grounds of breach of privacy relying on earlier court decision - Learned Master initially declined to mark the materials citing personal liberty and privacy of a third party - High Court observed that privacy must be balanced with the paramount welfare of the child and societal interest - Material allegedly showing drug use and procurement of narcotic substances bears directly on parental fitness and the child's safety and cannot be excluded merely because it originated in a private communication - Privacy can be preserved by confining the material to the custody proceeding and examining it confidentially - Held - Application allowed permitting the documents to be received and marked subject to proof of genuineness relevance admissibility statutory certification and objections of the father - [Paras 2-22].

Evidence Law - Electronic Records - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 65B - Evidentiary value and proof - Marking of a document does not amount to proof of its contents - Applicant must establish that the records were taken from the respondent's phone that they are complete and unaltered and that the statutory requirements governing electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act have been met - Respondent entitled to cross-examine and raise all objections regarding source authorship authenticity integrity completeness relevance admissibility and evidentiary value - Held - Documents received solely for the guardianship proceeding without expressing any opinion on the truth of the allegations - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Application allowed – The five sets of documents mentioned in the schedule to the application are permitted to be received and marked before the Learned Master subject to proof of genuineness relevance admissibility statutory certification and all objections of the father.

Writ Law - Security Cover - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Withdrawal of security cover - Petitioner an elected Member of Parliament Rajya Sabha challenged the withdrawal of state security cover immediately after leaving the ruling political party citing threat to life due to protests and posters branding him a traitor - State submitted that withdrawal was based on prior threat assessment by Security Review Committee conducted much before his resignation as he predominantly stayed outside the State - State further submitted that petitioner was already granted Y+ category CRPF security by Ministry of Home Affairs and State would provide local area deployment during his visits - Court observed that the decision to withdraw was taken earlier and protests did not establish threat to life and liberty ipso facto - Held - no further direction required as security concerns were adequately addressed by the Central and State Governments - petition disposed of - [Paras 1-6].

Writ Law - Threat Assessment - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Evaluation of threat perception - Petitioner claimed threat to life and liberty citing protests outside his residence and posters labelling him a traitor - Court held that mere protests or being branded a traitor would not establish threat to life and liberty ipso facto especially when protests were non violent - Held - subjective satisfaction of Security Review Committee based on actual threat assessment prevails - [Para 5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – No further directions issued as the petitioner has been provided Y+ security by the Central Government and the State Government has undertaken to provide local deployment during his visits to the State.

Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol II - Rule 3-17A - Counting of part-time service - Petitioners working on part-time basis for long continuous periods regularized after introduction of New Pension Scheme - State denied counting of part-time service towards qualifying service relying on Rule 3-17A - High Court rejected State contention - State cannot exploit citizens by continuing them as part-time workers for decades - Valuable service rendered prior to regularization cannot be excluded for pensionary benefits merely because initial engagement was part-time - Held - Petitioners entitled to have part-time service reckoned as qualifying service for pension - State directed to fix and release pensionary benefits under Old Pension Scheme - [Paras 21-27].

Service Law - Old Pension Scheme - Haryana Civil Services Pension Rules 2016 - Cut-off date for Old Pension Scheme - Employees appointed against posts advertised prior to notification of New Pension Scheme on 28 October 2005 - Appointed and joined after 01 January 2006 due to administrative delays - State issued Office Memorandum dated 08 May 2023 granting one-time option for Old Pension Scheme - State denied benefit arguing appointments made post cut-off - High Court observed subsequent recruitment was continuation of original advertisement preserving earlier candidates eligibility - Held - Petitioners squarely fall within beneficial ambit of Office Memorandum - State cannot defeat policy object by hyper-technical interpretation - Petitioners entitled to exercise option to switch to Old Pension Scheme - [Paras 28-35].

Contract Law - Undue Influence - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 16 and 19A and 23 - Undertakings waiving statutory rights - State contended petitioners accepted terms of regularization subjecting them to New Pension Scheme - High Court held undertakings extracted from employees forcing them to forego statutory rights as condition of employment are unconscionable and void ab initio - State as model employer cannot abuse dominant position - Acceptance of such terms cannot operate as waiver of constitutional rights - [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Category I petitioners allowed counting of part-time service for pension and Category II petitioners permitted to exercise option to switch to Old Pension Scheme within six weeks.

Banking Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 34 - Bar on granting injunction - Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and declaration of 1/2 share in property and to declare a mortgage created by the 1st respondent-mother in favor of the 3rd respondent-bank as null and void - Appellant contended that the property was purchased by her father in the name of her mother as a benamidar and later a release deed was executed in 1993 without consideration to save the property from creditors - Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings following loan default and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession - Appellant sought interim injunction to restrain the bank from taking possession - Trial Court rejected the injunction holding that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court - High Court analyzed Section 34 and observed it contains two distinct limbs - the first limb bars the entertainment of a suit regarding matters a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is empowered to decide - the second limb prohibits any court from granting an injunction in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by the Act - Held - Even if a suit for partition is maintainable before a Civil Court because the DRT cannot decide such a plea - the second limb of Section 34 acts as a fall-back safety net and an independent bar - Civil Courts are strictly prohibited from granting injunctions against measures initiated by secured creditors under the Act - The bar on injunctions applies even in suits that are not hit by the first limb of the section - Impugned order upheld - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-34].

Civil Law - Interpretation of Statutes - Disjunctive Interpretation of Conjunctions - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 34 - Interpretation of the word and - Court examined whether the two limbs of Section 34 are conjunctive or disjunctive - Held - To carry out the legislative intent and prevent the section from becoming redundant the word and must be read disjunctively - The legislature intended to shield SARFAESI proceedings from being interdicted by any order of injunction issued by courts or other authorities - The two limbs of Section 34 must be read distinctively to ensure immunity for recovery proceedings from Civil Court interference - [Paras 19-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition and Scope - Petitioner association challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a consequential circular issued by the Director of Private Schools which directed all private matriculation and CBSE schools to display their fee structures at school entrances and on websites - Petitioner contended that private unaided educational institutions are not public authorities as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act since they are not owned-controlled-or substantially financed by the Government - Respondents argued that education is a public service and fee disclosure is a regulatory requirement for transparency - Court analysed the exhaustive definition of public authority under Section 2(h) and applied the ratio in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala - Held - Private educational institutions which are not owned or substantially financed by the Government do not fall within the ambit of public authority - Mere statutory supervision or regulatory oversight by the State does not render an institution a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act - Consequently the Information Commission lacked jurisdiction to pass sweeping directions against private schools - [Paras 46-54].

Writ Law - Jurisdiction of Information Commission - Legislative vs Adjudicatory Powers - RTI Act 2005 - Sections 19 and 20 - Commission issued directions to the Director of Private Schools to ensure fee display in all private schools and imposed penalties on educational officials - Petitioner argued the Commission exceeded its adjudicatory mandate by passing legislative-style directions beyond the scope of the specific RTI application - Held - The jurisdiction of the Information Commission is limited to adjudicating the specific case before it and it cannot issue sweeping legislative directions or appoint officers from other departments as Public Information Officers as a remedial mechanism across the State - The direction of the Commission resulting in the impugned circular by the second respondent was beyond its competence and failed the test of legal scrutiny - [Paras 55-60].

Writ Law - Regulatory Powers - Education Law - Fee Disclosure - Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 - Rule 17(3) - Conflict between RTI jurisdiction and State regulatory framework - While the Court found the Information Commission's order without jurisdiction it observed that private schools are independently bound by Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules - This rule mandates every private school to display fee structures and other infrastructure details on notice boards and websites one month before the academic year - Held - Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the Information Commission the Director of Private Schools independently possesses regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction to enforce Rule 17(3) - The disclosure of fees is a benevolent provision helping parents make informed decisions without being exploited - Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct all private schools to comply with the statutory mandate of Rule 17(3) while setting aside the penalties imposed under the RTI Act - [Paras 67-77].

Writ Law - Privacy and Reasonable Restriction - Constitutional Law - Articles 14-19(1)(g) and 21 - Petitioner argued that compelling fee disclosure violates informational privacy and the right to establish institutions - Ratio in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and P.A. Inamdar discussed - Held - Education is not a business and is subject to reasonable regulation to prevent profiteering - Fee structures determined by the statutory Fee Determination Committee are already in the public domain on the Committee’s website and thus no proprietary or confidential interest is violated by school-level display - The requirement for display is a reasonable regulatory measure in the interest of the general public - [Paras 21-40, 75].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of - The portion of the Information Commission's order imposing penalties and compensation is set aside - The direction to ensure display of fee structure is modified - Court directs the Director of Private Schools to ensure all private schools comply with Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 2023 by displaying the approved fee structure on notice boards and websites annually.

Writ Law - Constitutional Validity - Interpretation of Statutes - Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2023 - Section 4 - Retrospective operation - Amendment increased pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judges and transferred first appeals from High Court to District Courts with retrospective effect from 2007 - Petitioners argued that absence of saving clause would nullify 17 years of High Court judgments and take away vested rights - Single Judge had set aside retrospectivity as arbitrary - Division Bench analyzed legislative competence under Entry 11-A of Concurrent List and doctrine of purposive interpretation - Court noted that the amendment followed recommendations to reduce High Court pendency - Held - Legislature has competence to enact laws affecting jurisdiction - Forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law and not a vested substantive right - However - literal interpretation leading to nullification of thousands of concluded cases is manifestly absurd and unintended by the legislature - Section 4 of the Amendment Act is read down to exclude concluded matters and orders passed in pending proceedings from its retrospective operation - Retrospectivity confined only to the transfer of pending appeals to be governed by amended provisions from current stage - Single Judge order modified - [Paras 1-124].

Civil Law - Forum of Appeal - Procedural Law vs Substantive Right - Karnataka High Court Act 1961 - Sections 2 and 5 - Litigants contended that right to a specific forum for appeal is a vested right accruing on the date of suit institution - Reference made to Neena Aneja and SEBI v. Classic Credit Limited - Held - Right to appeal is substantive but the forum of appeal is procedural - Change in forum applies retrospectively to pending actions unless a contrary intention appears - Amendment by substitution implies the new rule replaces the old ab initio for pending matters - [Paras 49-60].

Writ Law - Equality Clause - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Challenge to High Court Amendment Act for treating Bengaluru Urban District differently where first appeals continue to lie to High Court from City Civil Court - Held - There is a clear distinction between Senior Civil Judges in districts and Judges in Bengaluru City Civil Court who are in the cadre of District Judges - Classification based on cadre and nature of jurisdiction is reasonable and has a nexus with the object of administration of justice - No discrimination found - [Paras 116-117].

Interpretation of Statutes - Purposive Interpretation - Doctrine of Reading Down - Language of Section 4 provided for retrospective effect from 28.08.2007 without any savings clause - Held - Courts are not powerless to read in words or restrict operation to avoid manifest absurdity or injustice - Legislative intent was to harmonize with the 2007 amendment and tackle pendency - Statutory provisions must be interpreted to serve their rightful purpose and spirit over literal wording - Retrospective operation restricted to save previous operations and things duly done - [Paras 64-90].

Decision: Writ Appeal (W.A No.200260/2025) disposed of – Writ Petition (W.P No.17588/2024) dismissed – Order of the Single Judge modified to the extent that Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act is read down rather than set aside – Concluded matters and prior orders in pending proceedings are saved – Pending first appeals to be transferred to jurisdictional courts as per the amendments.

Civil Law - Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 166 - Liability and Delay - Appeal by insurance company against award of Rs 5506268 passed by ADJ 6th Court Paschim Medinipur - Appellant contended FIR delay of 9 days was fatal and driver lacked valid license for heavy goods vehicle - Court observed delay is common in Indian families due to hospitalization and grief - Found unladen weight of vehicle was 3116 kg which does not meet the 12000 kg threshold for heavy goods vehicle under Section 2(16) - Driving license found valid upon verification of renewal history - Held - Finding on negligence and liability upheld - [Paras 1-7].

Civil Law - Just Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 168 - Quantum and Pension Adjustment - Challenge to award on ground that victim widow receives government pension - Court emphasized that arithmetic is a servant not a master in compensation cases - While pension cannot be strictly deducted it must be considered to ensure the award is not a bonanza but just and equitable - Noted widow receives Rs 21000 monthly pension - Held - Compensation modified to Rs 5000000 with 5 percent interest - [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Award modified and compensation reduced to Rs. 50,00,000/- with interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing till the date of order.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 21-B, 21-C, 27-A, 29, 37, 61 and 85 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 351 grams of heroin and drug money - Petitioner was nominated as an accused solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Jora Singh - No recovery of contraband was effected from the petitioner - Petitioner in custody since January 2026 with trial yet to commence as none of the fifteen cited witnesses were examined - High Court observed that disclosure statements in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implication - Court emphasized that reliance on unsubstantiated statements raises doubts regarding the fairness of investigation - Held - Further detention as an undertrial was not warranted - Regular bail granted subject to conditions - [Paras 1-10].

Criminal Law - Statutory Rigours - NDPS Act 1985 - Section 37 - Prolonged Incarceration - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Liberty - The Court ratiocinated that while bail pleas for commercial quantities must generally meet the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act such rigours pale into oblivion when bail is sought on account of long incarceration - Judicial discretion must strike a balance between personal liberty and effective administration of justice - Confessions made by a co-accused are inherently weak evidence and must be scrutinized with caution - Held - The rigour imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted where the trial is procrastinating and the petitioner has suffered significant under-trial custody without any other material linking him to the offence - [Paras 6.1-6.4].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate subject to specific conditions including non-tampering of evidence and filing monthly affidavits of non-involvement in other offences.