Education Law – NMC Guidelines – Retrospective Application Denied – Petitioners challenged refusal to revise their MBBS supplementary exam results declared on 18.08.2023 in accordance with the amended CBME guidelines reducing passing criteria from 50% to 40% – Interpretation of Notifications – Retrospective vs Prospective Operation – Notification dated 01.09.2023 of NMC not Clarificatory – Held: The 01.09.2023 notification introduced a substantive amendment reducing passing marks from 50% to 40% and cannot be construed as clarificatory or retrospective – Absence of express retrospective intent and the declaration via 03.10.2023 public notice confirming prospective application precludes retrospective application – Notification impacts substantive rights and thus must be read prospectively [Paras 9.1–9.4].

Supplementary Examinations – Continuation of Main Exam – Same Norms to Apply – Held: Supplementary exams are not distinct but a continuation of the main examination cycle – They must adhere to the standards applicable at the time of the main examination – Allowing disparate norms undermines uniformity, parity, and academic integrity – Petitioners’ reliance on declaration date of results (18.08.2023) does not alter the legal position [Para 9.4].
Equitable Relief – Interim Order and Equity – Interim Relief Cannot Override Law – Held: Although interim benefit was granted on 07.11.2023, courts cannot convert interim orders into final reliefs where statutory prescriptions and public interest demand strict adherence to norms – Equity cannot override substantive law especially in high-stakes professional disciplines like medicine – Public interest outweighs individual hardship [Paras 10–10.1].

Binding Nature of Precedents – Decisions of Other High Courts – Not Binding, Only Persuasive – Held: Judgments of Madras and Kerala High Courts granting retrospective effect to 01.09.2023 notification are not binding – This Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning of those courts – Inter-court precedent not mandatory, especially when factual distinctions and legal reasoning diverge – Only Supreme Court decisions are binding across all High Courts [Paras 11–13].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to benefit of revised guidelines dated 01.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 for supplementary exams held prior thereto – No costs imposed [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defence – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s defence was struck off for failure to file written statement within the prescribed period – Though petitioner appeared after affixation service, no request for time or application to file written statement was made – High Court held that mere appearance does not extend limitation, and delay was unexplained – Petition dismissed for lack of diligence [Paras 7–12, 17].

Section 151 CPC – Recall of Orders – No Justifiable Grounds for Delay – Applications Dismissed – Applications to recall orders striking off defence and denying right to lead evidence were filed nearly a year later – Delay attributed to counsel’s alleged non-guidance found unconvincing – Petitioner failed to explain inaction after engaging new counsel – Held: Recall application was misconceived and rightly rejected [Paras 15–17].

Right to Lead Evidence – Bar When Defence is Struck Off – Limited Rights Remain – Defendant sought to lead evidence to dispute genuineness of lease documents – Held impermissible in absence of written statement – After striking off defence, defendant has only limited right to cross-examine and cannot introduce independent evidence [Paras 13, 18].

Final Relief – No Perversity or Illegality – Dismissal Upheld – High Court found no legal error in trial court’s orders – Petition under Article 227 dismissed as meritless – Cost orders and denial of evidence upheld [Paras 19–20].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing – Declaration as Proclaimed Person – Procedural Lapses – Petition Allowed – The petitioners challenged their declaration as proclaimed persons under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without proper compliance – Held: The trial court failed to record satisfaction or reasons indicating belief that the petitioners were absconding or concealing themselves – Non-compliance with Section 82(2) is not a curable irregularity and renders the proclamation void – Reliance placed on Major Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406 and Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319 [Paras 9-11].

Right to Personal Liberty – Procedural Fairness – Compliance with Article 21 – The Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty must follow a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable – Proclamation order failed to meet constitutional and statutory standards – Held: Petitioner’s appearance before the Court and offer to cooperate mitigates the need for coercive measures [Paras 8-10].

Final Decision – Proclamation Order Set Aside – Petition Allowed - The impugned order dated 21.02.2024 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person was quashed – Petitioner directed to appear before the trial court within 4 weeks and granted bail upon furnishing bonds and depositing Rs. 5,000/- to Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh [Paras 11-14].

Family Law - Maintenance to Children – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum Justified – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order awarding ₹3,000 per month to each of his three minor children, alleging the income assessment was incorrect – Held: Petitioner is an able-bodied labourer assessed to earn ₹17,000/month, while wife earns ₹8,000/month and receives DV maintenance – Court rightly held petitioner liable for maintenance of children as joint responsibility – No perversity found in the impugned order [Paras 2, 10].

Purpose of Maintenance – Social Justice Objective – Protection from Destitution – Judicial Affirmation – Reiterated that Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims to prevent destitution and vagrancy of dependents – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vimala v. Veeraswamy, (1991) 2 SCC 375, and Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479, emphasizing its social justice objective and protective function [Paras 5–7].

Determination Criteria – Maintenance Quantum – Guided by Rajnesh v. Neha Principles – Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities and realistic assessment of earning capacities to ensure neither party is reduced to penury – Award must reflect socio-economic status and needs of dependents [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Family Court Order Affirmed – Family Court's findings were based on cogent appreciation of evidence and legal standards – No interference warranted as petitioner failed to show any legal infirmity or perversity – Petition dismissed [Paras 4, 10].

Civil Law - Pleadings – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation and Customary Law – Rejection Not Permissible Without Evidence – The petitioner sought rejection of a plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the claim of inheritance based on a 1926 mutation and the Customary Law barring inheritance through daughters disclosed no cause of action – Held: The existence of Customary Law, limitation, and right to inheritance required factual adjudication and could not be determined at the preliminary stage without evidence – The application was rightly dismissed [Paras 2–8].

Order VII Rule 11 – Only Plaint Averments to be Considered – Defence Cannot Be Basis for Rejection – Reiterated that only the averments in the plaint are relevant at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 – The Court cannot consider the defendant’s version, written statement, or evidence at that stage – Reference made to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, and Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa – Held: Defence arguments based on Customary Law or previous mutation inadmissible at this stage [Paras 6–7].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Cannot Be Decided Without Trial – Although the suit was filed 94 years after the 1926 mutation, the issue of limitation was held to be a mixed question of fact and law – Held: Such a question requires evidence and cannot be resolved in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision – Dismissed – Impugned Order Upheld – The Court found no merit in the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: The plaint disclosed triable issues requiring evidence, and the petition was dismissed accordingly [Paras 6, 9].

Service Law – Departmental Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Removal from Service Set Aside – Petitioner, a Class IV employee, was dismissed after being found guilty in a departmental enquiry for failing to arrive on time to escort a High Court Judge and allegedly being intoxicated – High Court upheld findings of misconduct based on statements of key witnesses and written complaint by the Judge – However, Court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and shocking to judicial conscience – Held: While upholding the misconduct, Court remanded matter to disciplinary authority for reconsideration of penalty – Reinstatement ordered without back wages, applying “no work, no pay” principle [Paras 9–15].

Civil Law - Pleadings – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation and Customary Law – Rejection Not Permissible Without Evidence – The petitioner sought rejection of a plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the claim of inheritance based on a 1926 mutation and the Customary Law barring inheritance through daughters disclosed no cause of action – Held: The existence of Customary Law, limitation, and right to inheritance required factual adjudication and could not be determined at the preliminary stage without evidence – The application was rightly dismissed [Paras 2–8]. 

Order VII Rule 11 – Only Plaint Averments to be Considered – Defence Cannot Be Basis for Rejection – Reiterated that only the averments in the plaint are relevant at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 – The Court cannot consider the defendant’s version, written statement, or evidence at that stage – Reference made to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, and Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa – Held: Defence arguments based on Customary Law or previous mutation inadmissible at this stage [Paras 6–7]. 

Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Cannot Be Decided Without Trial – Although the suit was filed 94 years after the 1926 mutation, the issue of limitation was held to be a mixed question of fact and law – Held: Such a question requires evidence and cannot be resolved in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 6]. 

Decision: Civil Revision – Dismissed – Impugned Order Upheld – The Court found no merit in the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: The plaint disclosed triable issues requiring evidence, and the petition was dismissed accordingly [Paras 6, 9]. 

Criminal Law – Rape and Abduction – Appeal Against Conviction - Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapse – Conviction Sustained – Though minor procedural lapses occurred in the test identification parade, Court upheld conviction based on corroborated eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence – Held: Identification parade is a rule of prudence and non-adherence does not vitiate the evidence when identification in court and corroborative evidence exists [Paras 40-42].

Criminal Intimidation – Mere Use of Abusive Language – No Threat to Cause Alarm – Maksud’s abuse of the prosecutrix using the term “Bhadkhau” did not amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506-II IPC – Held: Trial Court’s conviction set aside as ingredients under Section 503 IPC not met [Paras 34-37].

Electronic Evidence – No 65B Certificate – Validity Upheld – Nokia mobile phone of accused Wasim contained videos/photos of victims in compromising positions – Despite absence of 65B certificate, data admissible due to impossibility of obtaining certificate from accused – Held: Hash value verification and forensic chain of custody sufficient to rely on electronic records [Paras 26-32].

Rape and Abduction – Forcible Acts and Transportation in Vehicle – Conviction for Gang Rape and Abduction Upheld – Victim abducted, forcibly intoxicated and sexually assaulted by Wasim, Kadir, and a juvenile – Held: Consistent, corroborated evidence of victim and eyewitnesses along with medical and forensic support justified conviction under Section 376D IPC [Paras 4-12, 48-49].

Grievous Hurt – Not Attracted – Injuries Not Life-Threatening – Conversion to Simple Hurt – Though Trial Court convicted under Section 326 IPC, medical evidence showed simple injuries – Held: Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC as hurt did not endanger life [Paras 46-47].

Common Intention – Multiple Accused Acting in Concert – Conviction Justified – Offences committed in unison by accused including assault, abduction, rape and recording explicit content – Held: Evidence established shared intention and participation of accused in commission of crimes [Paras 43-44].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Accused Siraj – Identification Not Reliable – No Ocular Testimony – Though identified in TI Parade, no consistent deposition by eyewitnesses placing Siraj inside crime scene – Held: Conviction under Sections 450, 452, 326, 354B IPC set aside for want of sufficient evidence [Para 45].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Convictions of Maksud, Kadir and Wasim modified to exclude Section 326 IPC and include Section 324 IPC – Conviction of Siraj set aside – Other convictions including for rape, abduction, and electronic offences upheld – Sentences modified accordingly [Paras 31, 35, 36, 45, 47].

Service Law – Provident Fund Contribution – Claim on Revised Salary – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought direction for EPF contributions based on the salary of Mechanic from 15.07.2009 to 31.03.2018 after reversion order was quashed – Held: The respondent had already contributed as per the statutory ceiling under the EPF Act – EPF contributions cannot be directed retrospectively on arrears beyond the prescribed limits – Petitioner's claim barred by constructive res judicata as no such prayer was made in earlier writ proceedings [Paras 11-13].

Constructive Res Judicata – Omission to Claim in Earlier Petition – Effect – The petitioner had previously filed CWP-6385-2018 seeking pay revision, arrears, ACP benefits, and refund of recovery – Held: Failure to claim EPF contribution in that petition amounts to waiver – Fresh writ petition seeking that claim is not maintainable – Petition dismissed accordingly [Para 12].

Final Decision – No Right to Retrospective EPF Recalculation – Petition Dismissed - Contributions were rightly made as per ceiling limit under EPF Act – No direction can be issued to deposit EPF based on upgraded salary retrospectively after retirement [Paras 11-13].