Parole – Right of Convicts – Arbitrary Rejection Not Permissible – The petitioner, convicted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, sought parole for eight weeks, which was denied on the grounds that he might engage in drug smuggling and disrupt elections – Held: Mere apprehensions without supporting material cannot justify denial of parole – No credible evidence was provided by authorities to substantiate their claims – Parole granted for eight weeks [Paras 8-10, 14].

Administrative Discretion – Parole Decisions Must Be Based on Material Evidence – The respondents relied on a report stating that the petitioner could pose a threat to public order during elections – Held: The report was based on assumptions without input from local authorities, responsible individuals, or community members – Such speculative reasoning cannot form the basis for denying parole – The decision of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate was quashed [Paras 9-11].

Election Commission Guidelines – No Absolute Prohibition on Parole – The respondents cited Election Commission of India’s 2019 guidelines, which allegedly prohibited parole in NDPS cases during elections – Held: These guidelines applied to Parliamentary Elections 2019 and were not shown to be applicable to the 2024 elections – No fresh circular prohibiting parole in such cases was produced before the Court – The reliance on outdated instructions was misplaced [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Scrutiny – Parole Matters Must Be Decided Based on Law – The Court condemned the arbitrary exercise of power in parole decisions – Held: The petitioner was forced to approach the Court unnecessarily, warranting imposition of costs – However, costs were waived based on the State's assurance that future parole matters would be decided on merits [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Parole Granted – The impugned order dated 09.05.2024 was quashed – The petitioner was granted parole from 20/02/2025 to 17/04/2025, subject to furnishing surety bonds – Directed to surrender on 18/04/2025 at 11:00 AM [Paras 13-15].
 

Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Litigant’s duty to be vigilant – Appellants sought condonation of delay of 565 days in filing the appeal, alleging professional misconduct of their previous counsel – Held: Mere blaming of counsel without taking any action against them is insufficient to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay – Litigants, particularly educated and organizational entities, are expected to remain vigilant about their cases and cannot entirely shift responsibility onto their counsel – No interference warranted as the appellants failed to show due diligence in prosecuting their appeal [Paras 5.2, 6, 7].

Fair Hearing – Right to be Heard – Appellants contended they were deprived of a fair hearing before the Trial Court – Held: Record shows that the Trial Court granted adjournments and further liberty to the appellants’ counsel to address arguments on any working day before the final order – Failure to avail this opportunity amounts to waiver of the right to be heard – Argument of lack of fair hearing is meritless [Paras 4, 4.1].

Limitation – Purpose and Public Policy – Delay of 565 days in filing appeal – Held: Laws of limitation serve the purpose of ensuring finality and preventing prolonged litigation – A successful litigant has the right to treat a decree as binding once the limitation period expires – Courts cannot condone delay in the absence of a credible and reasonable explanation [Paras 5.6, 9].

Professional Misconduct of Counsel – Blame on Advocate – Appellants alleged their previous counsel did not inform them about the decree – Held: No action was taken by appellants against the previous counsel, making the allegations unsubstantiated – Court cannot assume misconduct of an advocate in the absence of a formal complaint or legal action against them – Delay condonation application dismissed [Paras 5.9, 6].

Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed as the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay – The appeal was consequently dismissed as barred by limitation – The court held that the successful litigant had the right to treat the decree as final, and condoning such a colossal delay would be unjust – No interference warranted in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court [Paras 9, 10, 11].
 

Rent Law - Eviction Proceedings – Ex Parte Order – Procedural Irregularities – The Rent Control Court passed an eviction order without assessing the merits of the case – The ex parte nature of the proceeding does not relieve the court from its duty to examine the sufficiency of the evidence – Held: The eviction order was mechanically passed solely because the evidence was unrebutted, without an independent evaluation of the landlord’s claim – Such an order is a nullity and unsustainable in law [Paras 8-10, 12-13].

Condonation of Delay – Principles of Justice and Equity – The petitioner sought condonation of a 1535-day delay in filing a petition to restore the appeal – The Rent Control Appellate Authority refused on the ground of lack of reasonable justification – Held: Though delay is generally condoned unless mala fides are apparent, the petitioner's failure to contest the eviction diligently weighed against him – Court allows restoration but imposes costs as a condition for relief [Paras 7, 15].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Judicial Responsibility – Duty of Court to Assess Evidence – Even when a case proceeds ex parte, the court must still ensure that the plaintiff/landlord establishes his right to relief – Held: The Rent Control Court’s order failed to demonstrate satisfaction regarding the landlord’s bona fide claim, rendering the eviction order legally unsound – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 9, 14].

Tenant’s Right to Contest – Condition for Restoration – Court grants the petitioner an opportunity to contest the eviction proceedings on merit – Held: Petitioner permitted to rejoin proceedings, subject to depositing Rs.15,000 as costs – If the petitioner fails to comply, the Rent Control Court can proceed afresh from the stage at which the petitioner was set ex parte [Para 15].

Decision: The ex parte eviction order dated 31.01.2015 was set aside due to procedural irregularities – The petitioner was permitted to contest the matter on merit, subject to depositing Rs.15,000 as a cost condition – The matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court for fresh adjudication, with a direction to dispose of the case by 11/04/2025 [Paras 14-15].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 4,90,000/- towards repayment of a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- with accrued interest – The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and compensation payment – Appellate Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court while retaining the compensation order – Held: Conviction justified as petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Signed Blank Cheque Defense – Petitioner contended that the cheque was given as a signed blank cheque to the bank manager in connection with a chitty transaction and was misused – Held: Mere claim of cheque misuse is insufficient without cogent evidence – Petitioner did not initiate any legal action against the alleged misuse, weakening his defense – Once the signature is admitted, the burden to prove manipulation shifts to the accused – No plausible explanation provided by the petitioner to displace the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Concurrent Findings – Petitioner sought interference with concurrent factual findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397-401 CrPC is limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice – High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no material – No glaring legal error found in the lower court judgments, warranting interference [Paras 8-10, 12].

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 138 NI Act was upheld – The judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, in Crl.A. No. 206/2017 was confirmed – The petitioner was directed to comply with the compensation order as imposed by the Appellate Court [Paras 11, 12].
 

Civil Procedure – Discovery and Inspection – Order XI Rule 15 CPC – Right to Seek Inspection – The petitioners, plaintiffs in an eviction suit, filed an application under Order XI Rule 15 CPC seeking inspection of documents referred to in the written statement – The trial court rejected the application, stating that it was filed at a belated stage after the settlement of issues – Held: The provision allows issuance of notice for inspection at or before the settlement of issues – The trial court failed to consider whether inspection was necessary and did not allow the defendant to justify non-compliance – Matter remitted for reconsideration [Paras 10-14].

Procedural Law – Interpretation of Order XI Rule 15 CPC – The requirement that a notice for inspection be given ‘at or before settlement of issues’ is directory, not mandatory – Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 held that procedural rules should be interpreted in a manner that advances justice – The trial court erred in treating the time limitation as absolute and rejecting the petition on this ground alone [Paras 15-17].

Fair Trial – Right to Present Evidence – Inspection of Documents – Order XI Rule 15 CPC empowers the court to decide whether non-production of documents warrants restraint on their admission as evidence – Held: The trial court failed to exercise its discretion under Order XI Rule 18 CPC to direct inspection or impose costs for non-compliance – Litigants should not be deprived of their right to present relevant documents unless there is deliberate suppression [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Review – Powers of the High Court under Article 227 – The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors – Held: The trial court’s order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the necessity of inspection and whether the defendant had a justifiable excuse for non-compliance – Order quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Order Set Aside – The order dated 09/05/2024 rejecting the petition under Order XI Rule 15 CPC is quashed – The matter is remitted to the trial court for reconsideration – The trial court is directed to allow the defendant to file an objection and pass a reasoned order within four weeks [Paras 24-25].

Education Law – School Attendance Monitoring – Validity of Circular – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged a circular requiring school teachers to submit attendance via WhatsApp photographs, arguing that it contradicted the 2019 policy and infringed on privacy – The State defended the measure as a necessary step to ensure teachers' regular attendance, citing instances of absenteeism and proxy teaching – Held: The circular aimed at ensuring accountability and did not violate any statutory provision – However, the privacy concern for female teachers and students required a revised mechanism – The State was directed to explore an alternative method, such as a secure mobile application – Pending such an update, female teachers were permitted to submit campus photographs instead of personal images – Appeal dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- on each appellant [Paras 9-15].

Criminal Law – Defamation – Section 356 BNS Applies Only if Public Good is Not Served – The petitioner was accused of publishing a book titled "The Real Reason Why Legend Died", along with videos, podcasts, and reels, allegedly defaming the family of Sidhu Moosewala – The Court held that mere publication of controversial content does not automatically amount to criminal defamation unless malice is established – Prima facie, the book was a legitimate personal account, not defamatory per se [Paras 3-4].

Anticipatory Bail – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Bail Granted – The prosecution alleged that the book contained baseless and misleading statements, damaging the reputation of Sidhu Moosewala’s family, and included unauthorized photographs and personal information – The Court, after examining the book’s translated extract, found no offensive or derogatory content – Held: Prima facie, the allegations do not warrant denial of anticipatory bail [Paras 4-5].

Freedom of Speech – Constitutional Protection – No Absolute Right – The Court acknowledged that freedom of speech under Article 19(1) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – However, in the absence of prima facie evidence of defamation or deliberate misinformation, the petitioner’s right to express personal views through a book and media content remains protected [Para 5].

No Intellectual Property Theft – Publicly Available Content Used – The prosecution claimed that the petitioner stole personal photographs and private details – The Court noted that the petitioner accessed publicly available information and did not commit intellectual property theft – This weakened the allegations under Section 380 IPC and Section 451 IPC [Para 5].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – The High Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner’s release on anticipatory bail.
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act – The wife sought divorce on the ground that the husband refused to lead a marital life and neglected her without reasonable cause – The trial court found that the husband intentionally avoided conjugal relations, causing mental cruelty – Held: Mental cruelty is a subjective concept and depends on the facts of each case – In the present case, evidence established that the couple had no marital relations, causing mental suffering to the wife – Decree of divorce upheld [Paras 8, 39-42].

Matrimonial Law – Validity of Remarriage – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – The respondent remarried within the appeal period, which was challenged by the appellant – Held: Remarriage within the appeal period is not void but remains subject to the outcome of the appeal – If the appeal reverses the divorce decree, necessary legal consequences follow – However, in the absence of an express declaration under Section 11 of the Act, such a marriage is not void ab initio [Paras 21, 37].

Matrimonial Law – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Impact on Divorce Proceedings – Though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the courts may consider it as a factor in assessing mental cruelty – The parties were living separately for a long period with multiple legal disputes – Held: Continuing the marriage would amount to cruelty and injustice – Appeal dismissed [Paras 51-53].

Effect of Wrongly Framed Issue – Whether the Husband Was Solely Responsible for Lack of Marital Relations – The trial court inferred that the husband was solely responsible, but evidence indicated that both parties contributed to the lack of conjugal relations – Held: While the trial court’s reasoning was partly flawed, the overall finding of mental cruelty remained valid – No interference warranted [Paras 44-46].

Decision – Divorce Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – The respondent’s remarriage does not affect the outcome, as the appeal itself is dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 54-56].

Maintenance – Enhancement Beyond Claimed Amount – Judicial Discretion Permissible - The respondent-wife, aged 63, sought an increase in maintenance due to financial hardship—The Family Court enhanced maintenance from ₹1,500 to ₹10,000 per month despite the wife's claim being ₹7,000—Held: While courts generally cannot award more than claimed, judicial discretion allows modification if material changes in circumstances are established—Decision: Enhancement justified considering the husband's pension and wife's needs [Paras 3-6].

Husband’s Financial Capacity – Pension Considered for Maintenance – No Substantiation of Excessive Liabilities - The appellant-husband, a retired railway employee, received a monthly pension of ₹50,000—He argued that his medical expenses and family obligations restricted his ability to pay ₹10,000—Held: The husband failed to provide documentary proof of his financial liabilities—Decision: Maintenance awarded was reasonable, constituting less than 25% of his pension [Paras 6-7].

Legal Principles – Modification of Maintenance – No Bar Against Awarding Higher Amount Based on New Evidence - The Family Court considered the husband's pension only after he disclosed it in his affidavit—Held: Since the wife's claim was made without knowledge of the husband's full financial status, the court was justified in enhancing maintenance beyond the amount originally sought—Decision: No interference warranted; appeal dismissed [Paras 5-7].