Education Law – Distance Education Degrees – Cut-off Dates Declared Invalid – Earlier judgment had prescribed 29.03.2010 (Deemed/Private Institutions) and 01.11.2012 (State Universities) as cut-off dates for recognition – Held: Such cut-off dates arbitrary, violate Article 21A and right to education – No evidence of irregularities at study centres or exams conducted – Academic qualifications obtained via distance mode upheld, subject to verification of affiliations and academic quality by UGC [Paras 32–34, 45–47].

Right to Education – Article 21A – Access to Distance Learning – Constitutional Protection – Held: Territorial restrictions imposed on examination/study centres of universities offering distance education defeat accessibility – Students cannot be denied educational and promotional opportunities due to administrative policies contrary to the core principles of remote education – Online and remote education valid where universities are duly recognized by UGC and maintain academic standards [Paras 31–33, 39–42].

UGC Guidelines – No Blanket Ban on Centres Outside Territorial Jurisdiction – Notifications Quashed – Held: Guidelines issued in 2010 and 2012 by DEC/UGC imposing jurisdictional limits on study centres held irrational – UGC failed to contest the writ petitions and did not appeal—Deemed to have acquiesced – Notifications (Annexures P-51 & P-53) quashed to extent they restrict operation of remote centres without UGC approval [Paras 21–30, 45].

Judicial Review – UGC’s Non-participation – Consequences – Held: In multiple LPAs, UGC was impleaded but failed to respond or contest the case—Its silence amounts to waiver and acquiescence to the directions issued – Argument of violation of natural justice rejected [Paras 15–18, 21].

Administrative Law – Degree Verification by Government Departments – Direction Issued – Held: While blanket cut-off dates quashed, recognition of degrees still subject to verification of institutional recognition, programme-wise recognition, and compliance with UGC norms—Verification to be done by government/UGC on case-to-case basis [Paras 44–46, 48].

Employment Law – Right to Consideration for Appointment/Promotion – Distance Degrees Not a Bar – Held: Unless degree is essential qualification and found invalid on verification, candidates cannot be denied regularization or promotion merely due to acquisition of qualification through distance mode – Distinction made between core and additional qualifications [Paras 40–43, 48–49].

Decision:
LPA-2003-2019 allowed – Cut-off dates and UGC notifications quashed
LPAs filed by State of Punjab disposed of – State directed to consider claims without relying on cut-off dates, subject to verification
CWP Nos. 2438 and 27015 of 2021 disposed of – Directions issued for consideration of appointment
LPA-1105-2021 allowed – Matter remanded for fresh decision without applying cut-off dates
LPA-450-2021 dismissed – Disputed factual issue; liberty granted to petitioner to seek civil remedies
Directions for UGC and Government – To verify institutional recognition, ensure academic standards, and provide proper invigilation in exams at centres outside university HQs [Paras 44–52].
 

PIL - Public Prosecutors – Appointment and Consultation – Primacy of District Judge’s Opinion – Rules of 1978 Inapplicable - The Court held that the appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 24(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 18(3) BNSS) is governed exclusively by statutory provisions and not by the Kerala Government Law Officers Rules of 1978, which apply only to civil posts – Public Prosecutors do not hold civil posts and hence fall outside the purview of the Rules – The CrPC/BNSS mandates consultation with the Sessions Judge whose opinion must be given primacy in the selection process [Paras 7–12, 15–19].

Vacancies – Delay in Appointments – Duty of the State – Protocol Required - The Court expressed serious concern over delays in appointing Public Prosecutors and failure to create posts in newly established courts – Directed the State to formulate and follow a protocol for timely appointment – Court reserved the right to revive the petition in case of non-compliance [Paras 21–23, 24.3].

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Appointments – Guidelines Must Align with Law – The Court held that any executive guidelines which dilute the statutory consultative requirement or deviate from the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be invalid – Mandated formulation of new internal guidelines giving primacy to the opinion of District Judges [Paras 20, 24.2].

Decision – Suo Motu PIL Closed with Directions – The Court closed the suo motu proceedings with explicit directions for the State to issue revised guidelines for appointments and protocols for prompt filling of vacancies – Liberty granted to revive the petition if future violations occur [Paras 24–26].
 

Insurance Law - Insurance Coverage – Interpretation of Contract – Security Guard Not Covered – Appeal Allowed – The deceased was working as a security guard in a transport company and died in an accident during the course of employment – The insurance policy obtained by the employer listed coverage for cleaners and supervisors, but not for security personnel – Held: Security Guard did not fall within the specified categories in the policy and hence the insurer is not liable [Paras 9-11, 34].

Employee’s Compensation – Pay and Recovery – Not Applicable to Contractual Policies – Request Rejected – The claimants argued for applying the 'pay and recovery' principle despite insurer not being liable under the contract – Held: The doctrine of pay and recovery, though applicable in statutory motor vehicle insurance, cannot be extended to contractual policies under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Employer alone liable [Paras 12-14].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Strict Interpretation Required – Security Personnel Not Implied – The policy was interpreted strictly according to its terms – Held: As the policy did not expressly include security guards, they cannot be presumed covered – Broader interpretation rejected as being contrary to contract law [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurer Exonerated – The insurer’s liability under the impugned award was set aside – The employer alone was held liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty – Insurer entitled to refund of deposited amount after 8 weeks [Paras 8, 11, 14].

Bail - Terror Funding and Secessionist Conspiracy – Section 43D(5) UAPA – Prima Facie Bar to Bail – Bail Denied – Appellant alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy with Hurriyat Conference members and banned terrorist outfits to orchestrate unrest and violence in Jammu & Kashmir – Evidence includes sting operations, letters from militant commanders, protected witness statements, and digital materials showing coordination of protest calendars, funding via hawala, and association with terrorist leaders – Court found prima facie material linking appellant to conspiracy and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, warranting rejection of bail [Paras 72-94].

Sting Operation – Relevance and Admissibility – Incriminating Admissions – Despite objections regarding entrapment and inadmissibility, Court held that at bail stage, admissibility is not the test – Prima facie, appellant’s admissions on terror funding, stone pelting, and inducing unrest cannot be ignored – Held: Alleged confessions in sting operation supported by protected witness testimonies and voice sample analysis justified reliance at this stage [Paras 78-80].

Attendance at Pro-ISIS Rally – Open Source Video Evidence – Judicial Caution – Video evidence showing appellant participating in a rally with slogans and symbols allegedly supporting ISIS taken into consideration – Court held that distinction between religious flags and ISIS insignia is a matter of trial, but prima facie presence at rally corroborated by witnesses [Paras 81-82].

Protected Witnesses – Strategic Meetings and Protest Coordination – Statements of several protected witnesses (Alpha, Gamma, Jack, etc.) corroborated allegations of appellant’s participation in Hurriyat meetings, incitement to violence, and coordination with Pakistan-based operatives – Their statements supported by seized documents and digital evidence including protest calendars and communications [Paras 86-88].

Length of Incarceration – Not Sufficient for Bail – National Security Implications – Despite seven years of custody, Court emphasized seriousness of charges, presence of prima facie evidence, and threat to national unity as overriding factors – Trial had commenced and was being expedited; hence, prolonged incarceration not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 95-101].

Possibility of Witness Tampering – Relevance in Bail Refusal – Appellant’s continued influence over witnesses cited as a concern – Protected witnesses had expressed fear – Held: Grant of bail may jeopardize trial and endanger safety of those willing to testify [Para 102].
 

Civil Writ - Employment Law - Recruitment Process – Statutory Compliance – Statute 415 of Pune University – Selection Process Vitiated – Petitioners alleged manipulation, lack of quorum, superficial interviews, and tampering of interview records – Management’s failure to comply with Circular No. 102/2023 requiring same-day submission of selection records – Held: Selection process not in conformity with statutory requirements, violating procedural fairness [Paras 3-6, 29-34].

Recruitment Process – Approval and Cancellation – Role of University and Management – University granted provisional approval post-facto while Management had already resolved to cancel the process due to irregularities – Held: Management retains discretion to cancel recruitment; University correctly deferred to Management’s decision per Statute 411(2) [Paras 14-15, 30, 34.5].

Selected Candidates – No Indefeasible Right – Mere Inclusion in Merit List Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Candidates sought writ of mandamus for appointment orders based on selection – Held: No enforceable right arises unless appointment is completed – Cancellation of process by appointing authority renders claims untenable [Paras 11-13, 18, 35, 38].

Public Employment – Corruption Allegations – Management’s Conduct Condemned – Selection Process Marred by Allegations of Bribery, Fraud, Tampering of Records – Complaints from trustees and candidates pointed to large-scale corruption – Held: Entire process stands vitiated; segregation of tainted and untainted selections not feasible [Paras 5, 6, 34.3-34.4, 37].

Constitutional Principles – Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Fairness in Public Employment – Absence of Transparency and Procedural Regularity – Held: Process violated constitutional guarantees of equality and right to pursue occupation – Justified cancellation [Paras 7, 34.1-34.2].

Precedent – Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025) – Cancellation of Entire Selection Upheld in Case of Widespread Irregularities – Applied to present facts – Held: In light of systemic malaise, entire process rightly annulled [Para 36].

Decision – Entire Selection Process Cancelled – Petitions by Selected Candidates Dismissed – Petition by Unselected Candidates Disposed – Management Saddled with Costs of ₹1,00,000 for Lack of Bonafides and Procedural Abuse – Request for Extension of Interim Relief Rejected [Paras 38-44].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Evidence – Medical Corroboration – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows – The conviction was challenged on the ground of false implication and contradictions in witness testimony – Held: Testimonies of three eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were consistent with medical evidence – Recovery of blood-stained knife corroborated prosecution’s version – Trial court’s reliance on their statements was justified despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Acquitted – No Impact on Main Accused – The co-accused Bhim Singh was not named in FIR but added in testimony later – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him and acquitted – Held: Mere acquittal of co-accused due to doubt does not vitiate the case against appellant when sufficient evidence exists against him – Prosecution version against main accused Vinod Kumar remained intact [Paras 10, 14-15].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Interference Not Warranted – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings – All essential elements of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Directions issued for arrest and recovery of remaining sentence [Paras 16-17].
 

Life Imprisonment – No Automatic End at 20 Years – Remission Must Be by Government – Petition Dismissed - The Court clarified that life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life – Rule 320(A) and Section 57 IPC cannot reduce the sentence to a fixed term – Remission requires specific order under Section 432 CrPC – No indefeasible right arises without such remission [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Remission – Rule 320 Prison Rules Not Sufficient – Requires CrPC Compliance – Policy of 2018 Not Applicable - Remission under Rule 320 cannot operate autonomously to secure release – Government must exercise power under Section 432 with procedural checks – G.O.Ms.No.8 bars remission for death convicts whose sentence was commuted and those convicted of offences against minors – Petitioner’s father falls under both categories [Paras 24-26, 34-36].

Applicability of Remission Policy – Law at Time of Commutation Applicable – Not at Sentencing – Clarified - Court rejected argument that remission policy applicable at time of conviction (1995) should govern consideration – Held: Relevant date is the commutation of sentence (1998) when remission became relevant [Paras 35-36].

Parole – Must Be Considered Fairly – No Absolute Bar – Case Referred Back - Though past parole requests were rejected citing threat and staff shortage, Court found no incident occurred during four prior paroles – Directed respondents to consider parole on par with similarly situated prisoners per Asfaq guidelines [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Liberty to Apply for Remission under Section 432 – Parole to Be Considered - Writ petition dismissed but liberty granted to file application under Section 432 CrPC – State to assess eligibility as per law and prevailing policy – Any parole application to be judged in light of reformative jurisprudence and fairness [Paras 41-42]

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against conviction - Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Confession Voluntarily Made – Conviction Upheld – Appellant confessed to killing his wife before village chowkidar and other witnesses, then surrendered at the police station with blood-stained Gandasa and a country-made pistol – Such conduct falls under Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Supported by forensic evidence showing human blood on the weapon and clothes – Held: Extra-judicial confession corroborated by surrounding circumstances and forensic evidence is reliable and valid for conviction [Paras 3-9, 35-37, 43-48, 56-58].

Prompt FIR – Importance in Criminal Trial – FIR Lodged by Chowkidar – Validity Maintained – FIR lodged within two hours of the incident by the village chowkidar on oral information received – Head constable corroborated the lodging of FIR – Despite the chowkidar turning hostile, the court accepted the FIR as valid and prompt – Held: Timely FIR lends credibility to the prosecution case and cannot be discarded due to hostility of informant if otherwise corroborated [Paras 4-6, 37-38, 50, 53-54, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Forensic Corroboration – Conviction Based on Chain of Events – Deceased was last seen with the appellant, and appellant was seen returning alone – Appellant admitted guilt and provided murder weapon and clothes stained with blood – Forensic reports confirmed human blood on items – Held: Circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 9-14, 35-36, 43-47].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Partial Testimony – Acceptance of Supporting Depositions – Several prosecution witnesses including complainant and key witnesses turned hostile – However, relevant portions consistent with prosecution’s case accepted by the court – Held: Hostility does not invalidate entire testimony; courts may rely on corroborative parts [Paras 20-22, 51-55].

Refusal to Provide Signature – Adverse Inference – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Accused refused to provide specimen signature to verify written confession – Held: Refusal permits drawing adverse inference against the accused, particularly when confession and recovery of incriminating material stand otherwise proved [Paras 47-48].

Police Witness Testimony – Reliability – Admissible When Trustworthy – Recovery memos and confessional reports prepared in presence of police officers found consistent and truthful – Courts held that police testimony, if credible, can form basis of conviction – Held: No requirement that police witness must be independently corroborated in every case [Paras 25-28, 40-42].

Decision – Conviction confirmed – Appeal dismissed – High Court held that the trial court rightly convicted the accused based on extra-judicial confession, forensic evidence, and circumstantial facts – Accused directed to surrender and undergo life imprisonment as sentenced [Paras 61-62].
 

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].