Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction from Self-Acquired Property – Peaceful Living and Dignity – Appeal by daughter-in-law against decree directing her eviction from in-laws' property – Respondents, aged parents-in-law, pleaded mental distress and toxic cohabitation due to acrimonious matrimonial dispute – Held: Senior citizens, as undisputed owners of self-acquired property, are entitled to live peacefully with dignity and can seek eviction of daughter-in-law when alternate accommodation is offered under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act – Right of residence is not an indefeasible right to remain in the same premises [Paras 1, 6–8, 24–27, 33–34, 39–40]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed suit property as her shared household under Section 2(s) PWDV Act and challenged decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Held: Right under Section 17 is not absolute or proprietary – Where senior citizens provide suitable alternate accommodation, eviction is permissible – Statutory right of residence does not override lawful ownership [Paras 28–31, 35–36]

Decree on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Appellant admitted ownership of suit property – Sole defence was shared household status – Court held no real triable issue existed and decree was rightly passed on admission, considering offer of alternate residence [Paras 29–32]

Alternate Accommodation – Adequacy and Parity – Respondents offered rent-capped alternate residence with allied expenses covered – Appellant’s demand for equivalence in size and configuration rejected – Held: Purpose of alternate accommodation is to ensure safety and dignity, not parity in luxury – A two-bedroom flat in comparable locality deemed sufficient [Paras 34–38, 42]

Balance of Rights – PWDV Act vs. MWPSC Act – Court affirmed that both statutory protections must co-exist – Woman’s right to shelter must be balanced against senior citizens’ right to peaceful living – Civil suit not barred by prior proceedings under special statutes – Decree achieves just equilibrium [Paras 39–41, 44]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Directions of Single Judge upheld – Appellant to be provided two-bedroom alternate accommodation with rent up to Rs. 65,000/month and associated costs – Appellant to vacate suit property within two weeks of offer [Paras 42–45]

Civil Writ - Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Land Taken Without Compensation – TDR Certificates Directed – Petitioners executed gift deed for 405 sq. yards of land in 2014 for road widening—Respondents denied compensation or TDR on ground that land was voluntarily gifted as condition for building permission – Court held there was no record showing waiver of compensation or that gift deed was a pre-condition for permission – Held: Petitioners were entitled to TDR certificates as land was taken for public purpose without due compensation, violating Article 300-A of the Constitution [Paras 1–2, 14–20].

Municipal Law – Land Surrender for Public Purpose – Gift Deed Does Not Bar Compensation – Municipal Corporation relied on the gift deed and petitioners’ development benefits to deny compensation – Court ruled that gift deed cannot be used to override constitutional right to fair compensation for public acquisition – Building permission and constructed area allotted to petitioners were held irrelevant to the compensation claim [Paras 7–9, 15, 19].

Property Law – Voluntariness and Coercion in Development Agreements – Gift Deed Not Truly Voluntary When Conditioned on Official Permissions – Court noted that even if any affidavit or undertaking was taken from the petitioners to waive compensation, such documents would not amount to voluntary consent if extracted as a condition for development approval – Such undertakings were held unenforceable and contrary to constitutional protections [Para 17].

Reliance on Precedents – Compensation for Public Acquisition Must Be Fair and Just – Court relied on Bommadevara Venkata Subba Rao v. State of A.P. and Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah – Reaffirmed that even if right to property is no longer fundamental, it remains a constitutional right—State cannot forcibly acquire land without compensation [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to calculate eligibility and issue TDR Certificates to petitioners within 8 weeks – No order as to costs.

Bail – Gangster Act – Second Bail Application – Rejection for Lack of New Grounds – Applicant sought bail under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act after rejection of earlier application – Criminal history of 11 cases spanning from 2013 to 2023 including prior Gangster Act charges – No new grounds urged beyond continued incarceration and parity with co-accused – Held: Mere parity or passage of time not sufficient – No new material to satisfy Section 19(4)(b) – Bail rejected [Paras 2, 4, 8-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Requirement under Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act – Court reiterated that before granting bail under the Act, it must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Applicant's criminal antecedents and recurrence of charges under the Gangster Act indicate he remains a threat to society – Satisfaction under Section 19(4)(b) not recorded – Bail rightly refused [Paras 6-7, 9].

Successive Bail Applications – No Change in Circumstances – Not Maintainable – Relying on precedent Satya Pal v. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 287 and State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 – Court held that unless substantial change in fact situation is shown, successive bail application not maintainable – Filing repeated applications with same grounds held to be abuse of process [Paras 7-8].

Criminal History – Consideration for Bail – Threat to Society – Applicant had history of repeated offences including under Cow Slaughter Act, Arms Act, IPC and earlier Gangster Act charges – Bail denied citing threat to public order and possibility of further offences – Public interest outweighs individual liberty in such cases [Paras 7, 9].

Decision: Second bail application rejected – No new or substantial ground shown – Long criminal history and repeated invocation of Gangster Act noted – Satisfaction under Section 19(4)(b) not possible – Applicant deemed threat to society if released [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Standards of Proof – Allegation of Witness Tampering Not Corroborated – Bail of Accused No.19 (a former investigating police officer) cancelled by trial court based on a complaint by CW-42 alleging inducement – High Court held that cancellation of bail requires proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Since CW-42’s testimony was already recorded and no supporting inquiry or corroboration was provided, allegation found insufficient to justify cancellation – Held: Mere apprehension or unverified complaint cannot form basis for revoking bail [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Politically Sensitive Investigation – Abuse of Process – Transfer to CBI – Bail of Other Accused Cancelled – The murder of Yogesh Gouda, allegedly politically motivated, was initially investigated by local police – Later transferred to CBI due to allegations of cover-up involving senior police officers and political figures – Bail of co-accused including sitting MLA cancelled due to evidence of witness tampering – However, petitioner’s case found to be distinguishable due to absence of concrete proof of misconduct [Paras 1, 12].

Evidence – Burden on Prosecution in Bail Cancellation – Referencing State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, Court reiterated that in cancellation of bail, prosecution must establish tampering or interference with judicial process on balance of probabilities – Relying solely on a witness's letter without inquiry or corroboration does not meet the threshold [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not to be Cancelled on Vague Allegations – Liberty of Accused Requires Careful Balancing – Court emphasized need for caution in interfering with liberty granted by bail – Observed that allowing cancellation based on unverified complaints would open floodgates for misuse – Imposed continued adherence to original bail conditions and liberty to prosecution to seek future cancellation on fresh violation [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling bail set aside – Bail of petitioner (Accused No.19) restored on earlier terms – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation afresh upon future violations.

Constitutional Law – Regulation of Social Media – Challenge to Blocking Orders under IT Act, 2000 – Validity of 2021 IT Rules and Sahyog Portal – Petitioner, a global social media platform, challenged the constitutional validity of blocking orders issued by the Government of India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Petitioner argued that the blocking orders violate principles of natural justice, free speech, and are ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Petitioner, being a foreign company, cannot invoke Article 19 – Regulation of social media is essential to prevent misuse and crimes, particularly against women and children – Sahyog Portal held to be a valid instrument under Rule 3(1)(d) of 2021 Rules and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, aiding the execution of lawful orders – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 7.1, 10, 11, 13, 14.4, 17.1, 18.1, 24.2, 25].

Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) – Scope and Applicability – Foreign Social Media Platforms Not Entitled to Claim Rights under Article 19 – Court reiterated that Article 19 guarantees rights only to citizens of India – Foreign entities operating in India cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19 – Petitioner’s attempt to invoke Article 19 against take-down orders held untenable – Freedom of speech is not unfettered and must yield to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest [Paras 14.4, 19, 22.4, 24.2, Summary Point (6)].

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Blocking Orders – Compliance Obligations on Intermediaries – Constitutional Validity of Rule 3(1)(d) and Section 79(3)(b) – Sahyog Portal facilitates due process and enables intermediaries to comply with lawful orders – It is not ultra vires the parent Act – Court held that it serves the statutory purpose of assisting in regulation and monitoring of content on digital platforms – No merit found in the challenge to its validity [Paras 18.1, Summary Point (7)].

Algorithms – Human Agency – Regulation – Court Rejects Argument that Platform is Machine-Driven without Human Involvement – Petitioner argued that its platform is algorithm-driven without human control – Court rejected the argument, holding that algorithms are designed, coded, and managed by humans – Algorithms influence amplification of unlawful content – Therefore, regulatory responsibility cannot be evaded by citing automation [Paras 22.1–22.4].

Social Media Menace – Need for Regulation – Cyber Crimes Against Women and Children – Global Comparative Perspective – TAKE IT DOWN Act (USA) and Indian Regulatory Framework – Court observed that social media platforms facilitate spread of misinformation, hate speech, child sexual exploitation, deepfakes, cyberbullying, and gender-based abuse – Extensively cited global regulations including the TAKE IT DOWN Act in USA, and decisions from Brazil, EU, and Australia – Held that India is equally entitled to enforce regulations to protect public interest and ensure accountability of digital platforms – Regulatory action in India cannot be contested while similar or harsher laws are followed abroad [Paras 20, 23.1–23.10, 24.1–24.3, Summary Points (9), (11), (13)].

Violence Against Women – Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence – Role of Intermediaries – Citing reports from the UN and other international bodies, Court acknowledged the rising incidents of online gender-based violence facilitated by social media – Highlighted threats to safety, privacy, dignity and psychological well-being of women due to deepfakes, sextortion, and online hate – Held that platforms must be accountable and responsive to regulatory directives to mitigate such harms [Paras 23.6–23.7, 23.9, Summary Point (11)].

Comparative Law – Global Regulatory Trends – Digital Services Act (EU), OSA (Australia), Marco Civil (Brazil) – Court referred to international legislative developments like the EU Digital Services Act (2024), Brazilian Supreme Court rulings, and Australia’s Online Safety Act – Noted that petitioner complies with take-down laws in other jurisdictions but challenges Indian laws – Held that such differential treatment is unacceptable – Law must be followed uniformly by intermediaries [Paras 24.1–24.2, Summary Points (9), (13)].

Platform Accountability – Transparency Reports – Petitioner’s Own Data Reveals Non-Compliance with Content Removal Obligations – Petitioner’s August 2025 transparency report showed 31 grievances on child sexual exploitation with zero action taken – Court relied on this to affirm Solicitor General’s submission regarding the petitioner’s habitual non-compliance – Held that this justified regulatory oversight and enforcement actions [Paras 23.10].

Free Speech vs. Regulation – Constitutional Balance – Platforms Cannot Claim Immunity from Regulation in the Name of Free Speech – Court emphasized the delicate balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm – Held that regulation of online content is essential for democratic discourse, public order, and protection of vulnerable groups – Social media cannot become a lawless zone under the guise of free expression [Paras 22.4, 23.9, 24.3, Epilogue].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the constitutionality of take-down orders, Sahyog Portal, and the IT Rules, 2021 – Found that social media platforms must comply with Indian law – Petitioner's non-compliance and selective adherence to foreign regulations found unjustified – Intervener applications also dismissed [Para 25].

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of State Pollution Control Boards – Environmental Compensation – RSPCB imposed environmental compensation for alleged operation of brick kiln without valid Consent to Operate – Petitioners challenged competence of Board to impose compensation without statutory backing – Held: In absence of rules and regulations forming subordinate legislation, the RSPCB lacks authority to impose compensation under Sections 31A and 33A of Air and Water Acts respectively – Guidelines issued by CPCB in December 2022 do not carry statutory force – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 10.1 – 10.5, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Composite orders passed under both Air Act and Water Act held not appealable before NGT due to lack of specific statutory mechanism – Held: When impugned orders are passed without jurisdiction, writ petition is maintainable despite alternative remedy – High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ in such cases [Paras 9.2 – 9.4].

Administrative Law – Subordinate Legislation – Principles of Natural Justice – Supreme Court in Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. mandated that Pollution Control Boards may impose environmental compensation only upon notification of detailed rules and procedures ensuring fairness and transparency – Held: In absence of such framework, action of RSPCB imposing compensation is ultra vires and unsustainable [Paras 10.1 – 10.3].

Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of Judicial Decisions – Held: Supreme Court rulings apply retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise – Lodhi Property judgment clarifies that State Boards require legislative competence to impose compensation – RSPCB's demands issued prior to the judgment also covered under its ratio [Para 10.5].

National Green Tribunal – Delegation of Judicial Function – Petitioners successfully argued that NGT cannot delegate core adjudicatory functions like compensation determination to administrative bodies – Power under Section 15 of NGT Act is judicial and non-delegable – RSPCB cannot act solely on NGT’s administrative directions [Paras 4.2, 11].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned orders/notices imposing environmental compensation quashed and set aside – RSPCB restrained from taking coercive action – Any amount recovered from petitioners to be refunded within six weeks – Future imposition of compensation by RSPCB permissible only after framing of appropriate subordinate legislation ensuring procedural safeguards and natural justice [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Social Media Defamation – Creation of Fake Online Profiles – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Allegation that petitioner created fake social media accounts portraying respondent as a prostitute and posting derogatory content – Such material accessible to public at large constitutes publication and attracts Section 499 IPC – If proved, allegations are defamatory – Held: Trial Court justified in taking cognizance and framing charges [Paras 2, 4].

Information Technology Act – Section 66C & 66D – Identity Theft – Impersonation – Creating Fake Social Media Account in Respondent’s Name – Acts amount to prima facie offences under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by personation) – Offensive and sexually explicit portrayal attracts consideration under Section 67A – No ground to quash proceedings at threshold [Para 4].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Threshold – Allegations disputed by the accused cannot be examined in quashing jurisdiction – Whether petitioner actually created accounts is a matter of trial – Sworn statement and preliminary material support cognizance – No perversity in order framing charges – Petition dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Family/Matrimonial Disputes – Online Harassment of Sister-in-law – Posting derogatory content during matrimonial discord – Court notes allegations are serious and cannot be brushed aside as mere family quarrel – Material shows “public domain” posts leading to wide circulation [Paras 2, 4].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Proceedings in C.C. No. 16087/2022 to continue before the I ACMM, Bengaluru [Para 5].

Property Law – Joint Ownership – Partition – Benami Transaction Defense – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiffs sought partition of properties jointly purchased in their names and that of the defendant – Defendant claimed that he alone contributed the entire consideration and plaintiffs were only benami title holders – Court held that Sale Deeds stood in joint names and defendant failed to produce any documentary proof to show exclusive contribution – No bank statements or financial records produced by the defendant for the relevant period (1997–2000) – Defendant's admission that no evidence existed to prove his sole funding, and his reliance on Dena Bank demand draft failed to rebut presumption arising from registered Sale Deeds – Held: Burden of proof to establish benami nature of transaction lies on the party alleging it – Defendant’s plea barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act – Presumption of ownership stands in favour of name-holders – Partition decree granted [Paras 10–16, 19].

Registered Title – Evidentiary Value – Burden of Proof – Registered Sale Deeds (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3) show names of plaintiffs and defendant as joint purchasers – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of consideration passing to joint holders – No recital in the documents indicating that defendant was sole purchaser – Held: Registered title cannot be displaced without cogent evidence – Plaintiffs entitled to their respective shares as per recorded ownership [Paras 13–16].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Decree – Partition Relief Granted – Court held 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Royapuram property (Schedule A) and all three plaintiffs jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Madhavaram properties (Schedule B) – Defendant failed to establish exclusive ownership or contribution – No costs awarded due to family relationship [Paras 20–22].

Decision: Suit decreed – Preliminary decree for partition passed – 1st Plaintiff entitled to 1/2 share in Schedule A property – Plaintiffs 1 to 3 jointly entitled to 3/4 share in Schedule B properties – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].