Family Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Sections 13(1) and 23(1)(a) - Cruelty and Desertion - Appellant-wife filed for divorce alleging physical violence dowry demand and false aspersions on character - Trial Court dismissed the petition finding allegations unproved and omnibus in nature - In a separate criminal trial initiated by appellant against third parties for offences including rape she was found to be a consenting party to physical relations with another man post-marriage - Trial Court invoked Section 23(1)(a) holding she cannot take advantage of her own wrong - High Court affirmed the findings noting appellant voluntarily left matrimonial home and was involved in an adulterous act - Held - Trial Court committed no error in rejecting the divorce petition - appeal dismissed - [Paras 3-12].

Family Law - Desertion - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1) - Appellant claimed she was forced to leave matrimonial house - Cross-examination revealed she left with her brother who was not examined as a witness - Affidavit of appellant suggested she left on her own volition without compulsion or torture - Held - issue of desertion not proved against respondent - [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Trial Court judgment and decree affirmed - Record of the trial court to be remitted back along with a copy of the judgment.

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Mandatory procedure for personal search - Applicant was accosted by police during patrolling and found in possession of 100 grams of Mephedrone - Prosecution claimed that a notice under Section 50 was served and the Applicant provided an oral waiver of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer - Trial Court rejected the bail application - Applicant contended that the search was illegal as the waiver was not reduced to writing and signed by him in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court - Applicant remained in custody for three and half years without the examination of any witnesses despite the framing of charges - High Court noted that the oral waiver recorded in the Panchnama lacked the necessary signature of the Applicant on the notice or a separate document - Held - Procedural non-compliance with Section 50 and long period of incarceration justify the grant of bail - Application allowed - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 50 - Procedure for search of person - Waiver of right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - Requirement of written documentation - Mere oral statement of waiver recorded by the police is insufficient - The empowered officer must reduce any such waiver into writing and obtain the signature of the suspect in the presence of witnesses to ensure strict compliance with statutory safeguards - Reliance placed on the decision in Rajan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh - Held - Failure to properly record the waiver in writing supports the Applicant's case that the search was not conducted as required by law - [Para 6].

Decision: Application allowed – Applicant released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties – Applicant directed to mark attendance at RAK Marg Police Station on the first and third Sunday of every month.

Criminal Law - Narcotics - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 22(c) 29 37 42 and 43 - Search and seizure - Mandatory procedure - Private vehicle - Night search - Accused No 1 was intercepted in a Baleno car at 9:40 PM and found in possession of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs while Accused No 2 was arrested for conspiracy - Prosecution alleged the seizure took place on a public road - Petitioners contended that the detecting officer failed to record and forward grounds of belief as mandated under the proviso to Section 42(1) for searches conducted between sunset and sunrise in private vehicles - Court held that for searches in private vehicles even at public places based on prior information at night the provisions of Section 42 and not Section 43 apply - Total non-compliance with Section 42 mandates regarding recording grounds of belief vitiates the proceedings and can be considered at the bail stage to bypass the rigour of Section 37 - Held - Petitioners entitled to bail - [Paras 1-7].

Evidence Law - Procedural Compliance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 42 - Search between sunset and sunrise - Private vehicle versus public conveyance - Search and seizure conducted in a private vehicle at a public place between sunset and sunrise requires strict compliance with the proviso to Section 42(1) which mandates recording grounds of belief - Failure to show such recording in the seizure mahazar constitutes total non-compliance - Such procedural infirmity is a valid ground for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities - Held - Bail granted - [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Applications allowed – Petitioners directed to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties and fulfilling conditions including weekly appearance before the investigating officer and non-tampering of evidence.

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 - Dismissal Approval - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Petitioner Municipal Corporation sought approval for dismissal of Respondent Clerk found guilty of masterminding octroi refund fraud - Internal enquiry found Respondent guilty of diverting Rs 4 10 885 to third-party accounts and receiving kickbacks - Industrial Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but rejected the approval application citing non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) proviso - Tribunal held that deductions for Provident Fund and Income Tax from wages and non-payment of an annual increment rendered the wage payment incomplete - High Court found that the Tribunal erroneously conflated regular November 2006 salary with the additional one month wages required under the proviso - Evidence showed Petitioner offered and sent Rs 14 468 via money order separately without deductions which the Tribunal ignored - Held - Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach that resulted in a corrupt employee claiming reinstatement with backwages - Findings of Tribunal were perverse and ignored material evidence on record - Writ petition allowed and dismissal approved - [Paras 1-43].

Labour Law - One Month Wages - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Proviso compliance - The requirement of paying one month wages is additional to the normal salary earned by the workman for the month of dismissal - Minor deficits or statutory deductions like Income Tax or Provident Fund do not ipso facto vitiate the approval application - Courts must distinguish between statutory deductions and other contractual deductions - Even if a deficit exists the Tribunal can direct the employer to deposit the shortfall while granting approval instead of setting aside the dismissal - Non-payment of an increment which was withheld or disputed at the time of application does not amount to violation of Section 33(2)(b) - Held - Objective of the provision is to provide solace to the employee and not to create technical loopholes for employees guilty of grave misconduct like corruption and forgery to escape consequences - [Paras 19-40].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of the Industrial Tribunal dated 07/05/2010 and 05/01/2012 set aside – Approval granted to the Petitioner's action of removal of the Respondent from service.

Criminal Law - Bail in Terrorism Cases - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 120-B - Appeal against dismissal of third bail application - Appellant allegedly headed the media cell of terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen and sent Message of Death email minutes before the 2008 Delhi serial blasts resulting in 26 deaths - Trial Court dismissed bail citing statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) - Appellant contended false implication and 17-year incarceration as an undertrial - High Court analyzed the material on record including identification by laptop vendor and recovery of sophisticated file-erasing software - Court observed that once charges are framed under UAPA the threshold of prima facie truth is met for the purpose of bail restrictions - Held - The gravity of the offense involving a trail of devastation and the active conspiratorial role of the appellant as a computer professional outweighs the length of incarceration when the trial is at its fag end - appeal dismissed - [Paras 42-107].

Constitutional Law - Personal Liberty versus National Security - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Applicability of KA Najeeb ratio - Appellant argued that 17 years of incarceration makes continued detention unconstitutional - High Court interpreted the interplay between statutory bars and constitutional powers - Observed that while Article 21 protects individual liberty it also reflects the State obligation to protect the security of the community - In prosecutions involving national security the sovereignty and integrity of the nation must prevail over personal liberty where a prima facie case of organized terrorism exists - Held - Prolonged custody does not operate as an automatic override to the statutory threshold of Section 43-D(5) when the trial progress is substantial - [Paras 80-99].

Criminal Law - Parity - Distinction in Roles - Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 - Section 43-D(5) - Parity with co-accused - Appellant sought parity with co-accused Mohd Hakim who was granted bail - Court examined the role of Mohd Hakim who supplied ball bearings versus the appellant who allegedly headed the media cell and hacked wireless networks - Held - The role of a computer professional managing the strategic media communication for a banned organization cannot be equated with a peripheral participant - parity denied - [Paras 77-101].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial within eight months as per Supreme Court mandate – Observations on bail not to affect the final adjudication on merits.

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 21 Rule 66 - Settlement of Sale Proclamation - Petitioner challenged the docket order of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court Chengalpattu which approved a draft sale proclamation and timeline filed by an Advocate Commissioner through a memo - Petitioner contended that the trial court ignored specific earlier directions in CRP No. 1341 of 2022 and CRP No. 3991 of 2022 to appoint an engineer for valuation and fix a base price after hearing parties - The High Court observed that the trial court virtually delegated its judicial power to the Commissioner by passing a judicial order on a memo instead of following mandatory procedures - Rule 66 mandates that the Court shall cause the proclamation to be made and drawn up after notice to the decree holder and judgment debtor - Held - The trial court blindly approved the draft forwarded by the Commissioner which is impermissible in law and contrary to High Court directions - Impugned order set aside and matter remitted for strict compliance - [Paras 1-17].

Civil Law - Delegation of Judicial Power - Civil Rules of Practice - Section 194 - Duty of the Judge - The power to settle a sale proclamation is a judicial function and not a ministerial task - Section 194 of Civil Rules of Practice mandates that any proclamation of sale must be necessarily settled by the Judge and signed by him - In the present case the trial court merely endorsed a draft suggested by the Advocate Commissioner on a memo - High Court held that such endorsement does not amount to compliance with the mandate of the law - Held - The Judge must personally settle the proclamation - [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Timely Disposal - Directions for Aged Litigants - Respondents 1 and 2 being aged litigants requested early disposal - High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the proceedings finally within three months - Held - Trial court to comply with mandatory requirements for settlement of sale proclamation within the specified timeline - [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order dated 05.06.2026 set aside – Matter remitted back to the trial court for compliance with mandatory rules and disposal within three months.

Civil Law - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(ia) - Cruelty - Irretrievable Breakdown - Appellant-wife filed for dissolution of marriage alleging physical assault under the influence of alcohol and false representation regarding the husband's employment in Singapore - Family Court dismissed the original petition in 2018 finding the wife failed to prove cruelty and left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause - On appeal the High Court noted the parties had been living separately since 2015 for over ten years - Notice served through paper publication as respondent's whereabouts were unknown for several years - Although the respondent initially expressed willingness to cohabit he failed to seek restitution of conjugal rights - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan and Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha - Held - When a matrimonial bond has ceased to exist and parties live separately for a considerable period with no chance of reunion - keeping the parties together in such circumstances amounts to cruelty to both sides - Impugned judgment and decree set aside - Marriage dissolved - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Matrimonial Relief - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13 - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Prolonged separation exceeding ten years - No cohabitation or steps for restitution of conjugal rights taken - Held - Where there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage the dissolution of the matrimonial bond is the only viable solution - Keeping parties tied in a dead marriage constitutes emotional and psychological cruelty - [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court are set aside – The marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce – No costs.

Writ Law - Delisting of Vendors - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Natural Justice - Petitioner firm challenged order of temporary delisting from supplying Elastic Rail Clips on grounds of alleged sample failure - Respondents issued show cause notice and subsequently passed impugned order without considering the reply of the petitioner - Respondents contended reply was received after the prescribed 30 day period - Court observed that although reply was received after 30 days it reached the authorities nine days prior to the issuance of the final order - Held - Authorities ought to have considered the reply before passing the order - Failure to do so constitutes violation of principles of natural justice - Impugned order quashed - [Paras 1-21].

Writ Law - Contractual Procedure - IRS Specification for ERC T-31-2021 - Clauses 15.1 and 15.4 - Mandatory Sampling Procedure - Samples of supplied materials were tested by Railway authorities without the presence of the representative of the petitioner - Specifications required sampling to be done in presence of firm representative or after due notice to witness the test - Admittedly the same was not followed in the present case - Held - Procedure for sampling and testing was not followed in accordance with the mandatory statutory conditions - Delisting based on flawed sampling is unsustainable - [Paras 11-13].

Writ Law - Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of Writ - Respondents raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an opportunity to file an appeal against the delisting order - Held - Writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy where the challenge is based on patent violation of natural justice and non compliance with law regarding mandatory sampling procedures - [Para 18].

Writ Law - Grounds for Delisting - ISO Apex documents - Clause 4.2.2 - Scope of Temporary Delisting - Guidelines provide specific conditions for temporary delisting including repeated failures or direction from law enforcing agencies - Court observed that the show cause notice as well as the impugned notice were not covered under any of the specified clauses for temporary delisting - Held - Order of temporary delisting passed without adhering to the specified regulatory criteria is invalid - [Para 17].

Decision: WPA No. 24149 of 2025 is allowed – Show cause notice dated 20/08/2025 and impugned order dated 09/10/2025 are quashed – Respondents granted liberty to take fresh samples in presence of petitioner representatives and take action in accordance with law.