Civil Law – Injunction - Defamation – Prima Facie Case and Rebuttal Opportunity – Wikipedia Content – Interim Relief Granted - Plaintiff alleged defamatory statements published on its Wikipedia page by anonymous administrators – Court found that statements were derived from editorial/opinion sources and not neutral or contextually accurate – Defendants No. 2 to 4, despite service, failed to appear or rebut allegations – Held: Impugned content is ex-facie defamatory and not reflective of source intent [Paras 5, 21-24].

Intermediary Liability – Section 79 IT Act – Duty Post Actual Knowledge – Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy Violated - Defendant No.1 claimed intermediary status under IT Act, 2000 – However, as platform professing neutrality, held to higher responsibility – Court cited Google India v. Visaka Industries to reaffirm intermediary obligations post actual knowledge via court order – Held: Defendant No.1 must act to prevent defamatory misuse once put on notice [Paras 15-16].

Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Bonnard Standard Reiterated – Protection from SLAPP Suits – Court Emphasized Cautious Use of Interim Injunctions - Referring to Bloomberg v. Zee and Bonnard v. Perryman, Court stated interim injunctions in defamation must meet strict scrutiny – However, given no response from Defendants No. 2 to 4 and clear misuse of editorial content, interim relief justified – Balance of convenience and irreparable harm weighed in Plaintiff’s favour [Paras 18-19, 24].

Single Publication Rule – Not Applicable – Fresh Cause of Action Arose – Court Distinguished Between Reproduction and Contextual Defamation - Court held that impugned statements on Wikipedia page were not verbatim reproductions of earlier sources – Content was distorted and taken out of context – Hence, single publication rule did not apply; cause of action was not time-barred [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Application Allowed in Part – Wikipedia Ordered to Remove Defamatory Content – Defendant No.1 directed to take down defamatory content and lift protection status of Plaintiff’s page – Application allowed in terms of prayers (b) and (c) [Para 25].
 

UAPA Bail – Prima Facie Case – Appellant Found in Possession of Looted Prohibited Arms – Bail Denied - Appellant apprehended in camouflaged dress along with looted prohibited bore weapons during Manipur ethnic violence – Investigation reveals Appellant’s past criminal history, training, and active participation in PLA activities – Recovery linked to stolen statearmoury weapons – Court held prima facie case under Sections 18, 23, and 39 of UAPA established, barring bail under Section 43D(5) [Paras 48-57]. 
 
Distinct FIRs – NIA FIR and Manipur FIR – Jurisdiction of NIA Valid - Appellant's contention regarding double jeopardy and re-arrest after bail rejected – Held: FIRs distinct as NIA case involves larger transnational conspiracy, while Manipur FIR relates to incident-specific charges – NIA jurisdiction upheld as MHA notification remains effective despite High Court setting aside procedural transfer order [Paras 30-34]. 
 
Co-accused Not Arrested – Discretion of Investigating Agency – Not a Ground for Bail - Court held that NIA’s selective arrest policy based on security situation and individual roles cannot be faulted – Appellant’s leadership role and influence distinguished him from co-accused who were enlarged on bail – Co-accused status cannot be a ground for parity [Paras 35-
36]. 
 
Tripod Test – Risk of Influencing Witnesses and Disturbing Public Order – Bail Refused - Appellant found to have significant local influence; apprehension that his release may aggravate law and order – Court accepted prosecution’s sealed cover materials indicating threat to peace and investigation – Bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and potential threat [Paras 55-57]. 
 
Doctrine of Speedy Trial – Not Absolute – Gravity and Prima Facie Case Under UAPA Override - Although the Court recognized the right to speedy trial under Article 21, it held that in UAPA cases, gravity of offence and national security considerations weigh against enlargement on bail unless conditions under Section 43D(5) are clearly not met [Paras 47, 57]. 
 
Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Bail Rejected – NIA Directed to Proceed with Investigation Expeditiously [Paras 57-58]. 
 

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]. 
 

Guardianship – Applicability of JJ Act over Guardians and Wards Act – JJ

Act Held Applicable – Children were found to be orphans within Section 2(42)(ii) of JJ Act as their mother was missing and mentally incapacitated and maternal grandmother expressed inability to care – Court held that JJ Act overrides the Guardians and Wards Act in such cases – Guardianship application under the 1890 Act not maintainable [Paras 25, 49-50, 76].

Child Welfare – Institutionalization Not Mandatory – Principle of Last Resort – Direct Placement Possible – Section 3(xii) mandates institutionalization only if no fit person or family support is available – Held: Court or CWC must first explore possibility of placement with a “fit person” including appellant who acted as caregiver since birth – Institutionalization not compulsory in such peculiar facts [Paras 57-66].

Definition of Orphan – Distinction between Orphan, Abandoned and Surrendered Child – Orphan Status Attracted – Appellant argued children were not abandoned or surrendered – Held: Children were orphans under Section 2(42)(ii) as legal guardian (mother) was mentally incapacitated and missing – Formal declaration of abandonment or surrender unnecessary [Paras 45-49].

Family Support – Concept Broadened – De Facto Caregiver Can Constitute Family Support – Held: “Family” in Section 32(1) JJ Act not limited to blood relatives – Appellant, who cared for children since birth with grandmother’s consent, amounts to family support – Children not orphans “without family support” to warrant automatic institutionalization [Paras 53-56].

Child Welfare Committee – Power to Place Children with Fit Person – CWC Directed to Consider Placement with Appellant – CWC directed to conduct inquiry under Section 36, giving appellant opportunity to be declared as “fit person” under Section 37(1)(d) or consider other suitable options like foster care or sponsorship before resorting to institutionalization [Paras 73-77].

Best Interest of Child – Welfare Paramount – JJ Act Principles Applied – Court emphasized that welfare of children is paramount under Section 3 of JJ Act – Existing bonding with appellant and continuous care since birth tilt balance against disrupting their placement without careful inquiry [Paras 5772].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Order Modified – Matter Remitted to CWC – Application under Guardians and Wards Act rejected but Court directed CWC to conduct inquiry and explore placement of children with appellant as a “fit person” or under other suitable non-institutional schemes as per JJ Act [Paras 73-77].

Civil Writ - Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Protection of Orphaned Children – Asset Safeguarding – Intervention by Court Justified - The Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction for minor petitioners orphaned due to tragic circumstances, who were residing in child care institutions – Petitioners alleged that relatives were attempting to illegally encroach and misuse the assets of their deceased parents – Held: The Court directed framing of robust guidelines for protection of property rights of orphan children and appointed the District Magistrate to initiate guardianship proceedings [Paras 1-7].

Lacunae in Institutional Response – Guidelines Mandated – Uniform Mechanism Required - The Court found significant coordination gaps between Child Welfare Committees, District Magistrates, Police, and Courts – Accordingly, directed formulation and adoption of “Guidelines to Safeguard Property Rights of Orphaned Children in Delhi” defining the roles of key stakeholders with fixed timelines and mandatory action steps – The guidelines were finalized with suggestions from Amicus Curiae and State representatives [Paras 8-14].

Court Procedures – Guardianship Applications – Expeditious Disposal – The Court emphasized that Family Courts must treat orphaned child guardianship applications with utmost urgency – Long adjournments cannot be countenanced – Family Courts directed to act within four weeks from receipt of applications and ensure ongoing supervision until the child attains majority – Separate counsel for children to be appointed to ensure representation of their interests [Paras 15-17].

Final Disposition – Petitions Allowed with Directions – The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with comprehensive directions to all state organs and judicial officers to secure the rights and future of orphaned children – Appreciation recorded for assistance of counsel and Amicus Curiae [Para 18-20].
 

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].
 

Disqualification – Misconduct under Section 42(10) – Removal of Municipal Property Without Authority – Disqualification Upheld - Petitioner (President) directed removal of Municipal materials from pump-house without authority or Council’s approval – Pump-house was subsequently demolished – Held: Petitioner acted negligently and facilitated the loss of Municipal property – Misconduct proved – Disqualification under Section 42(10) valid [Paras 15-42].

Principles of Natural Justice – No Prejudice Demonstrated – Plea of Violation Rejected - Though petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, no request was made for such opportunity and no prejudice shown – Held: Absence of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings in the peculiar facts of the case – Disqualification order valid [Paras 15-27].

Emergency Powers – Section 43(2) Not Invoked – Procedure Not Followed - Petitioner failed to demonstrate exercise of emergency powers properly – No report to Standing Committee as required under Section 43(2) – Action unilateral and without statutory backing – Conduct amounted to dereliction of duty [Paras 31-38].

Loss Recovery – Regional Commissioner Lacked Jurisdiction under Section 308 – Personal Liability Set Aside - Regional Commissioner lacked authority to fasten liability for loss under Section 308 – Only Deputy Commissioner is competent – Portion of order fixing personal liability set aside with liberty to proceed afresh as per law [Para 44].

Land Ownership Dispute – Observations on Title Not Binding – Limited to Disqualification Proceedings - Observations made by Regional Commissioner regarding title or ownership of disputed land held not binding or conclusive – Left open to be decided independently in competent proceedings [Para 45].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 4409/2023 Dismissed – Disqualification Confirmed – Writ Petition No. 15015/2023 Partly Allowed – Findings on Property Rights Clarified [Para 46].
 

Civil Writ - Challenge against eviction - Removal of encroachments over river - Land Assignment – Eligibility under Special Rules, 1993 – Requirement of Conversion Before 01.01.1977 Not Satisfied – Regularisation Denied - Petitioners sought regularisation of occupation under the Special Rules, 1993 but failed to prove conversion of land for noncardamom cultivation prior to 01.01.1977 – Held: Occupied lands were classified as river, road and rock puramboke with no record of eligible occupation, making the petitioners ineligible for regularisation [Paras 5-7, 11]. 
 
Encroachment – Obstruction to Free Flow of River – Public Safety and Disaster Management – Eviction Upheld - Constructions caused obstruction to Panniyar river's natural flow resulting in flooding risk – District Disaster Management Authority directed demolition of structures under Disaster Management Act – Held: Eviction proceedings lawful to ensure public safety and prevent environmental degradation [Paras 11-14]. 
 
Interim Orders – Effect of Dismissal of SLP – Subsequent Proceedings Unstalled – Petitioners Not 
Entitled to Parity - Petitioners relied on status quo order passed by Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.17060/2024 – Held: Since the SLP was dismissed on 28.01.2025, interim protection lapsed and petitioners cannot claim continued benefit based on the same [Paras 9-10]. 
 
Right to Rehabilitation – Not Absolute – Limited to Eligible Evictees – Relief Declined - 
Petitioners claimed entitlement to rehabilitation as ordered in previous writ petitions – Held: No documentary evidence of eligibility for rehabilitation produced, and encroachment being over river puramboke, no vested right for assignment or rehabilitation arises [Paras 11-12]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Eviction Process Found Valid – Petitioners Failed to Establish Entitlement for Regularisation or Rehabilitation [Paras 12-13]. 
 

Civil Law - Documentary Evidence – Post-Institution Sale Deeds – Relevancy Not Established – Leave Rightly Denied - Petitioners sought to introduce certified copies of sale deeds executed in 2019 while suit filed in 2010 was at argument stage—Held: Documents did not exist at time of suit, not referred in pleadings, and pertained to other survey numbers—Trial court correctly held them irrelevant to dispute in Sy.No.237 [Paras 2–6, 14].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Discretion of Court – Not Routine – High Threshold for Late Documents - Court reiterated that documents not filed with plaint can be received at trial only with leave and for good cause—Discretion under Order VII Rule 14(3) is exceptional and must be exercised judiciously, especially when hearing has commenced [Paras 10–13].

Amendment of CPC – Harshness Removed, Not Unrestricted Inclusion - While 2002 Amendment relaxed earlier bar on late filing, Court clarified it still does not permit introduction of unrelated or newly created documents unless clearly relevant and justified—No such justification found in present case [Paras 9–11].

Pleading and Issues – No Basis in Original Suit – New Documents Cannot Broaden Scope - The Court held that bringing post-suit documents into record without corresponding pleadings effectively introduces new issues—Trial courts have discretion to prevent such expansion beyond the plaint [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Rejection of IAs Seeking to Receive Post-Suit Documents – Miscellaneous Petitions Closed – No Costs [Para 15].