Child Custody – Trauma Due to Litigation – Modification of Custodial Arrangements Set Aside – Welfare of Child Paramount - The Family Court altered an earlier consent decree granting shared custody based on allegations of the mother violating its terms – The child, diagnosed with ADHD, was unwilling to go with the father and displayed emotional distress in court – Held: Courts must exercise parens patriae role and prioritize the child’s emotional and psychological welfare – Modification of custody based solely on presumed non-compliance of mother unsustainable when child’s trauma is evident – Impugned order set aside; original decree restored [Paras 21-31].

Child Rights – Court Appearance by Children – Guidelines Issued – Psychological Harm Recognized - The Court found that repeated court appearances had caused the child emotional breakdown and feelings of stigmatization – Held: Children should not be compelled to appear in court unless absolutely necessary – Orders passed to ensure dignity, privacy, and minimal disruption to children involved in custody disputes [Paras 23-34].

Exchange of Custody – Court Premises Not Ideal – Neutral Venues Recommended - The practice of using court premises for custody exchange can reinforce trauma in children – Held: Neutral venues, preferably chosen with parental consensus, should be prioritized unless exceptional reasons dictate otherwise – Registry directed to circulate this guideline to all Family Courts [Paras 34-35].

Decision of the Case – Appeal Allowed – Custody Arrangement Restored – Guidelines for Child-Friendly Judicial Processes - The appeal was allowed, and the original custodial arrangement restored – Detailed directions issued to ensure children’s welfare in family litigation – Registry ordered to circulate guidelines to Family Courts [Paras 31-35].

Election Dispute – Qualification to Vote – Rule 6 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules – Bar on Voting Confirmed – The appellants, former members of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society, were restrained from voting in the APMC election on the ground that they ceased to hold the qualifying capacity prior to the election date – Held: Rule 6 mandates that to vote, the person must continue to hold the qualifying capacity on the date of election – Since appellants’ term expired on 30.06.2022, their exclusion was justified [Paras 10-14].

Jurisdiction of Presiding Officer – Limited but Valid Exercise – Presiding Officer Empowered to Scrutinize Qualification under Rule 6 – The Presiding Officer was competent to prevent voting when voters ceased to hold qualifying capacity – Such action was consistent with Rule 6 and the 1965 Guidelines – No adjudication beyond the mandate of Rule 6 was involved [Paras 14-17].

Alternative Remedy – Availability of Election Petition – Rule 28 of 1965 Rules – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that election disputes regarding inclusion/exclusion of voters or objections to the electoral roll must be addressed through an election petition under Rule 28 – Petitioners’ bypassing of this remedy was impermissible [Paras 15-19].

Exceptional Circumstances – No Ground Made Out – The Court rejected the argument that the case involved extraordinary circumstances warranting judicial review under Article 226 – The Full Bench decision in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. applied – Remedy exclusively lies in an election petition [Paras 18-19].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Division Bench upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision refusing to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal – No interference warranted as the issue is sub-judice in a pending election petition [Paras 19-21].
 

Preventive Detention – Public Order vs Law and Order – Detention Quashed - The petitioner was detained under the J&K Public Safety Act based on prior FIRs and a 2024 petty offence – Court held the alleged acts did not disturb public order and were adequately addressable under regular criminal law – Detaining authority failed to justify why normal legal remedies were insufficient – Detention held to be illegal and quashed [Paras 13–15, 26].

Application of Mind – Copy-Paste from Police Dossier – Detention Invalid - Grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of police dossier without independent analysis – Court held this demonstrated non-application of mind by the detaining authority – Such mechanical exercise of power vitiates detention orders – Held: Detention order suffers from constitutional infirmity [Paras 12, 27].

Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of Article 22(5) – Right to Representation Denied - The petitioner was not provided with all relied-upon documents nor given proper opportunity to make representation – Breach of Article 22(5) and PSA procedural requirements established – Court emphasized need for cautious exercise of preventive detention powers in light of Article 21 rights [Paras 3, 15, 28].

Legal Threshold – Disturbance to Community Not Proven – Supreme Court Precedents Applied - Applying rulings in Ram Manohar Lohia, Arun Ghosh, Rekha, Ameena Begum, and others, the Court reiterated that mere criminal acts or FIRs do not justify preventive detention unless they disturb the life of the community – Detention must address “public order,” not routine law and order issues [Paras 16–25].

Decision – Detention Order Quashed – Petitioner Ordered to be Released - The Court found merit in the writ petition – Held: Detention order No. DMS/PSA/07/2024 dated 04.04.2024 is illegal – Ordered immediate release of petitioner from custody [Paras 26, 29].
 

Civil Writ - Tender Condition – Tie-Breaker Based on Younger Age – Found Arbitrary – Violative of Article 14 - Petitioner and respondent No.7 secured equal marks for dealership selection – Clause 7.2.1(b) of IOCL's brochure gave preference to the younger candidate in case of tie – Held: Sub-classification among similarly placed candidates within the same age bracket of 21-35 years has no rational nexus with the object of the selection process – Condition struck down as discriminatory [Paras 14-18]. 

Judicial Review – Limited Interference in Tender Conditions – Scope Explained - Tender conditions can be judicially reviewed when found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14 – Held: Petition is maintainable despite petitioner participating in the process, as challenge pertains to post-process tie-breaker and not essential tender terms [Paras 6, 17-18]. 

Age as Classification – Not an Immutable Characteristic But Not Rational in Present Context – Court Rejects Younger Age Preference - Held: While age is not constitutionally listed as an immutable characteristic like race, caste, or sex, there is no rational basis for preferring younger candidates within the same age group where both secure equal marks – Classification struck down [Paras 12-16]. 

Alternative Criterion Available – Educational Qualification Already Provided as TieBreaker - Clause 7.2.1(c) prescribes educational qualification as the next parameter for tie-breaker – Held: Preference could have been given on that basis rather than making arbitrary preference based on mere younger age [Para 16]. 

Decision – Petition Allowed – Clause 7.2.1(b) Declared Unconstitutional – IOCL Directed to Devise Suitable Tie-Breaker Criteria Before Proceeding Further [Para 18-19]. 
 

Service Law – Departmental Appeal – Punishment Enhanced Without Notice – Order Set Aside – Petitioner, a police officer, was initially punished with forfeiture of two increments after an incident involving a minor—Home Secretary enhanced punishment to reduction in rank without issuing notice – Held: Enhancement of penalty without show cause notice violates Rule 16.28(3) of Punjab Police Rules – Order set aside as procedurally illegal [Paras 1–3, 6–11].

Rule 16.28 PPR – Enhancement of Penalty – Review Must Follow Due Process – Respondents claimed Home Secretary acted under Rule 16.28 PPR – Held: Enhancement in appeal cannot be justified under review powers unless separate review proceedings are initiated with due notice – Procedure under Rule 16.28 not followed, making order unsustainable [Paras 7–13].

Merits of Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Incident Did Not Involve Misuse of Authority – Petitioner acted during official duty, found two condoms in a minor’s vehicle—No direct act of abuse or harassment attributed to him – Held: Disciplinary authority’s original punishment of two increment forfeitures was proportionate – Further enhancement unjustified [Para 14].

Judicial Precedent – Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance Punishment Without Power – Ref: Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner Taxation, 2019 (20) GSTL 349 – Held: Unless statute confers specific power, appellate authority cannot impose higher penalty – Impugned action ultra vires [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Court restores DGP’s order and sets aside Home Secretary’s order enhancing penalty – Petitioner to retain substantive rank of Head Constable [Para 15].
 

Contractual Employment – Project Closed – No Right to Continue – Termination Held Valid - Appellants were contractual employees under the NIDDCP merged into the RCH Programme – Respondents decided to close the project in Delhi – Held: Contractual employees have no vested right to continue after project closure – Impugned order rightly upheld [Paras 19-24].

Policy Decision – Project Closure – Not Amenable to Judicial Review - Closure of the project was based on expert assessment and policy decision – Court held that such administrative decisions are not open to judicial interference unless arbitrary or malafide, which was not the case here [Paras 20-22].  

Regularisation – Umadevi Principle – Appellants Not Entitled - Appellants' claim for regularisation was rejected – Held: They were engaged on contractual basis co-terminus with the project – Even long service does not confer right to regularisation unless appointment was through proper selection [Paras 19-23].  

Age Relaxation & Experience Consideration – Direction for Future Selection – Relief Granted - Though claims for absorption were rejected, Court directed that appellants should be given age relaxation and due weightage of service experience in future regular recruitment processes [Para 23].

 Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Impugned Order Affirmed – Appellants to be Considered for Regular Selection with Age Relaxation [Para 25].

Criminal Law – POCSO Act - Appeal Against Acquittal – Standard of Review – Presumption of Innocence – Appeal Dismissed - High Court reiterated that appellate interference in acquittal must rest on compelling reasons, particularly when trial court had evaluated the credibility of the victim and prosecution witnesses thoroughly – Held: No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s reasoning to justify interference [Paras 13-17].

Victim Testimony – Reliability – Inconsistent and Uncorroborated – Acquittal Upheld - The prosecutrix, though not declared hostile, gave inconsistent statements during cross-examination, failed to recall specific dates and details, and contradicted earlier depositions and medical history – Held: Victim not a wholly reliable witness, and her testimony lacked independent corroboration [Paras 8-9, 13-14].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Report Inconclusive – No Signs of Injury – Acquittal Maintained - Medical evidence indicated pregnancy but did not reveal any signs of physical injury or establish forced intercourse – DNA profiling report did not support prosecution case – Held: Evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11-13].

Hostile Witnesses – Prosecution Weakened – Acquittal Justified - Parents of the victim (PWs 3 and 4) and other relatives did not support the prosecution, and were declared hostile – Held: Absence of supportive testimony from material witnesses undermined the prosecution case significantly [Paras 10-11].

Decision – No Interference Warranted – Appeal Dismissed - The Court held that in the absence of reliable victim testimony and lack of corroborative evidence, there is no ground to overturn the acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Para 17].

Matrimonial Law – 125 CrPC - Maintenance – Interest on Maintenance – Mandatory under Precedent – Review Allowed - The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 on the ground that the Court failed to apply the binding precedent of Prakash vs. Vithabai, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1487, which mandates award of interest on arrears of maintenance – The Court held that failure to apply the said binding precedent amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record – The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 125 CrPC as per Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor (2020) 13 SCC 172 – Review allowed and interest @9% per annum awarded on maintenance from 07.06.2024 till realization [Paras 5-28].

Review – Error Apparent on Record – Non-consideration of Binding Precedent – The Court held that overlooking binding judgments, including Prakash (supra), amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record and warrants review, particularly in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are quasi-civil in nature [Paras 17-24].

Maintainability – Review in Maintenance Proceedings – Embargo under Section 362 CrPC Relaxed – The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC does not bar review in Section 125 CrPC proceedings owing to their social welfare character – Reference made to Sanjeev Kapoor (supra) and Rina Kumari vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 SCC OnLine SC 72 [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Review Allowed – Interest Granted – The Court reviewed the judgment dated 29.11.2024 and directed Respondent No.1 to pay interest @9% per annum on the maintenance amount awarded from 07.06.2024 till the date of realization – Rest of the judgment remained unaltered [Paras 27-28].

Bail under NDPS Act – Recovery Marginally Exceeding Commercial Quantity – Bail Granted – The petitioner was found with 55 kg poppy husk and 500 grams opium – The Court observed that the recovery was marginally over the commercial quantity limit – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 5 days – Only 2 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Trial likely to take a long time – Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration and pending trial [Paras 3-4].

Clean Antecedents – No Previous Conviction or Criminal History – The petitioner had no past criminal record and was not involved in any other case – The Court considered clean antecedents as a significant factor favoring bail – Bail cannot be mechanically denied solely due to seriousness of offence without considering individual circumstances [Paras 3-4].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Delay in Trial Considered – The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Hussainara Khatoon, Dataram Singh, and Baljinder Singh alias Rock cases to hold that bail is the rule and detention an exception – Bail is justified where there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – No opinion expressed on merits of the case [Para 5].