Criminal Procedure – Applicability of BNSS to Pending Cases – Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS – Held: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs pending proceedings initiated before the enactment of BNSS – Since the investigation was initiated prior to the enforcement of BNSS, the Cr.P.C. remains applicable, and Section 349 of the BNSS cannot be invoked – Order directing compliance with BNSS quashed [Paras 1, 8].

Collection of Voice Samples – Power of Magistrate – No Explicit Provision in Cr.P.C. – Judicial Interpretation – Held: Section 311-A of the Cr.P.C. provides for collection of specimen signatures and handwriting but does not explicitly authorize the recording of voice samples – In Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court ruled that a Magistrate may be empowered to order a person to provide a voice sample through judicial interpretation until explicit statutory provisions are introduced – However, this power stems from Article 142, which is exclusive to the Supreme Court and does not extend to subordinate courts – Magistrate’s order for voice sample collection under BNSS not tenable in law [Paras 9-10].

Self-Incrimination – Protection Under Article 20(3) – Constitutional Safeguards – Held: Compelling an individual to provide a voice sample may have implications for self-incrimination – The Supreme Court in Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) clarified that Article 20(3) applies only to testimonial evidence that is self-incriminatory – Issue of whether witnesses can be compelled to provide evidence that may later implicate them remains unresolved and is pending before a larger Bench – Consequently, the petitioner’s voice sample collection should abide by the decision of the larger Bench [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Magistrate’s Order Quashed – Larger Bench’s Decision Awaited – Held: Since the issue of whether a Magistrate can compel a witness to provide a voice sample is pending before a larger Bench, judicial propriety demands that the petitioner’s case abide by that decision – The impugned order directing compliance with Section 349 of the BNSS is quashed – Petition disposed of accordingly [Paras 13-16].

Judicial Review – Scope in Academic Matters – Examination Answer Keys – Limited Interference – The Appellants challenged the final answer key issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for the PGT (Chemistry) screening test, contending errors in evaluation – The High Court held that judicial intervention in academic matters is permissible only in cases of manifest error or arbitrariness – Reliance placed on the Expert Committee’s report, which found no merit in the objections raised – Held: Courts should not substitute their judgment for that of subject experts unless there is clear malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality in the evaluation process [Paras 5-11, 25-26].

Expert Committee Report – Finality of Evaluations – The court examined the Expert Committee’s report, which justified the revised answer key and rejected objections raised against certain questions – Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the answer key was patently incorrect or that the Committee’s findings were arbitrary – Held: The court cannot re-evaluate academic decisions made by expert bodies unless gross errors are evident – The examination process should be accorded finality to prevent undue litigation and uncertainty in public recruitment processes [Paras 9-12, 23-24].

Precedents on Answer Key Challenges – Courts must exercise restraint – Appellants relied on past judgments where re-evaluation was permitted due to demonstrable errors – The High Court distinguished these cases, noting that the present challenge lacked clear evidence of error – Cited Supreme Court decisions affirming that courts should not interfere with academic evaluations unless the key answers are demonstrably wrong and beyond reasonable debate – Held: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish an error, which was not met in this case [Paras 12-15, 18-21].

Relief Denied – No Fundamental Error Found – The court found no compelling reason to interfere with the expert assessment or HPSC’s decision – Appeal dismissed – No costs imposed – Directed that the Expert Committee’s report be returned in a sealed cover to the HPSC [Paras 26-28].
 

Anticipatory Bail - Financial Fraud – Misappropriation of Funds in Co-operative Society – Petitioners, including former and present members of the Perumbavoor Urban Co-operative Society, accused of financial fraud, loan irregularities, and document forgery—Alleged misappropriation of ₹33.33 crores by granting loans without valid documents—Held: Sufficient prima facie evidence against petitioners—Custodial interrogation required—Bail denied except for medically incapacitated accused [Paras 4-9].

Forgery and Loan Fraud – Illegal Loan Disbursement Without Knowledge of Applicants – Petitioners accused of sanctioning loans using forged documents without the applicants’ knowledge—Prosecution alleged that fake loan beneficiaries were created to siphon funds—Held: Serious allegations of fraud affecting depositors—Bail denied as investigation is ongoing [Paras 10-14].

Medical Grounds for Bail – Consideration of Health Conditions of Accused – Some petitioners sought bail citing serious medical conditions, including paralysis and hospitalization—Held: Bail granted to K. M. Abdul Salam and Babu John due to medical reasons, with conditions to cooperate with investigation—Other petitioners’ medical claims rejected as not severe enough to preclude custodial interrogation [Paras 15-19].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in White-Collar Crime – Prosecution contended that the accused had concealed the true nature of transactions, making custodial interrogation essential—Held: Given the complexity and scale of fraud, custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing the entire conspiracy—Bail denied to key accused [Paras 20-22].

Final Decision – Bail applications of most petitioners dismissed—Bail granted only to two petitioners on medical grounds, subject to conditions—Court directs accused to surrender before the investigating officer—Emphasized need for stringent investigation into large-scale financial fraud [Paras 23-26].
 

Service Law - Promotion – Requirement of Efficiency Test – Discretionary Power of Chief Justice – Petitioners, Junior Personal Assistants, challenged the notification dated 01.05.2024 requiring them to appear for an Efficiency Test for promotion—Petitioners argued that a previous batch was granted promotion without the test and claimed discrimination—Held: The Chief Justice has discretion under Article 229 and Rule 30 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, to relax conditions, but such relaxation cannot be claimed as a right—Petitioners cannot insist on exemption merely because it was granted in an earlier instance—Writ petition dismissed on this ground [Paras 8-15].

Seniority and Promotion – Whether Juniors Can Compete for Vacancies Occurring Prior to Their Appointment – Petitioners contended that allowing Junior Personal Assistants appointed in 2020 to compete for vacancies occurring before their appointment in 2016 violates the Rules—Held: Promotion under the 25% quota based on seniority-cum-efficiency must be conducted separately for each recruitment batch—Vacancies occurring before 2020 must be reserved for the 2016 batch—Efficiency Test for different batches must not be combined—Test conducted in May 2024 declared improper for including later appointees—Relief granted to petitioners on this ground [Paras 18-22].

Mandamus – Whether High Court Can Direct Chief Justice to Relax Rules – Petitioners sought a writ directing the Chief Justice to relax the Rules and exempt them from the Efficiency Test—Held: Article 229 vests absolute discretion in the Chief Justice for administrative matters—Courts cannot issue mandamus directing relaxation of Rules—However, courts can ensure promotions are conducted fairly in accordance with prescribed Rules—Petitioners not entitled to exemption, but entitled to fair selection process [Paras 16-17].

Final Decision – Writ petition partly allowed – Requirement of separate Efficiency Test for each recruitment batch affirmed—Respondents directed to segregate vacancies and conduct fresh Efficiency Test for the 2016 batch separately—Petitioners not entitled to blanket exemption from the test—Promotions already granted before this judgment not disturbed [Paras 23-25].
 

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Disclosure of Minor Victim’s Identity – Media Responsibility – The petitioner, an editor of a news channel, was accused of revealing the identity of a minor victim and her family in a sexual offence case—Held: Publication of victim’s identity violates Section 23 of the POCSO Act—Media houses have an obligation to protect the identity of child victims—Allegations justified investigation [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Power to Direct FIR Registration – The petitioner argued that the Special Court erred in directing the police to register an FIR instead of taking cognizance itself—Held: The Special Court can either take cognizance or direct investigation if it deems necessary—No illegality in the Special Court’s decision to refer the matter to the police [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Procedure – Whether Direct Complaint Before Special Court was Maintainable – The petitioner contended that the complainant should have approached the police first under Section 154 CrPC—Held: The POCSO Act contains overriding provisions that allow direct complaints to the Special Court—Court’s direction to register FIR upheld [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Criminal revision petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed—Police directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within two months—Special Court to expedite trial [Paras 14-16].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Rules at the Time of Death – Retrospective Effect Not Permissible – Claim Rejected - petitioners sought compassionate appointment for petitioner no. 2 under the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, after the death of the government employee – The opposite party rejected the application on the grounds that the petitioner did not qualify as a "family member" under the Rules prevailing at the time of death – The petitioners relied on the amended Rules, which later included an unmarried brother in the definition of “family members” – Held: The applicable rules are those in force at the time of death, and subsequent amendments cannot have retrospective effect – The claim was rightly rejected [Paras 4-6].

Compassionate Appointment – Limitation for Application – Delay Beyond Prescribed Period – No Right Accrued - application for compassionate appointment was filed more than two years after the employee’s demise, while Rule 9(b) of the unamended Rules prescribed a one-year limitation – The opposite party denied the claim on this ground – Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right but a welfare measure to provide immediate relief in financial distress – The claim was barred by limitation and rightly rejected [Paras 6-7].

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship Test – Stability of Family’s Financial Condition – No Justification for Appointment - deceased employee’s father was in government service and continued to earn post-retirement benefits – The financial condition of the family was found stable – Held: Compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely because a family member desires it – The purpose is to provide assistance in cases of immediate financial hardship, which was absent in this case – The claim was unsustainable [Paras 7-9].

Compassionate Appointment – Not a Matter of Inheritance – Subject to Conditions Prescribed by Law - petitioners argued that compassionate appointment should be granted as a matter of right – Held: Such appointments are an exception to regular recruitment and must satisfy conditions prescribed under service rules – The claim was untenable as it was not a matter of inheritance but of necessity-based assistance [Paras 8-9].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the claim for compassionate appointment was found to be unsustainable due to ineligibility, delay, and absence of financial distress [Para 9].
 

Bail Application – Accused Charged Under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Consideration of Offense Severity – Bail Granted - The appellant was accused of assaulting the complainant’s husband with a beer bottle, causing injuries, and making caste-based derogatory remarks. The Special Judge rejected bail, citing incomplete investigation. The High Court found that the injury suffered was a minor abrasion and that the appellant had been in custody since 11.01.2025. Held: Bail granted considering the period of custody and completion of material investigation [Paras 7-9].

Bail Conditions – Safeguarding Investigation – Compliance is Mandatory – Breach May Lead to Cancellation - While granting bail, the Court imposed conditions including execution of a personal bond, regular police station visits, and non-interference with the investigation. Any violation of bail conditions would invite immediate cancellation of bail, and the prosecution could move for such cancellation [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters – Scope of Revisional Powers – Balancing Liberty and Public Interest - The High Court emphasized that while the gravity of the offense is a crucial factor, bail should not be denied merely on accusations. Courts must balance personal liberty with the need for a fair investigation. Bail was justified as the appellant had already been in custody for a reasonable duration, and the alleged injury was minor [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to ensure non-interference in the investigation. Violation of conditions would result in cancellation of bail.
 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Survivor – Judicial Review – Right to Life – Permission Granted – A 13-year-old minor, a victim of sexual assault, was diagnosed with a pregnancy beyond the permissible 24-week limit under the MTP Act – The petitioner (father of the minor) sought permission for termination, citing the grave risk to the child’s life due to pre-existing medical conditions (Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy) – The Medical Board opined that continuing the pregnancy posed life-threatening risks – Held: The statutory mandate under the MTP Act does not override the fundamental rights under Article 21 – Where medical opinion confirms serious health risks, courts must exercise discretion to permit termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit – Petition allowed [Paras 6-10, 34-35].

Reproductive Autonomy – Constitutional Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Bodily Integrity Upheld – The Court held that reproductive rights and the autonomy of a woman over her own body, including termination of pregnancy, are protected under Article 21 – The right to make reproductive choices is integral to personal liberty and human dignity – The legislative framework should not be interpreted to deny a person’s right to make medical decisions affecting their life and health – Held: Denying termination in such cases would be contrary to the spirit of constitutional morality and fundamental rights [Paras 12-14, 31-32].

Medical Board’s Role – Statutory Delay – Need for Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) – The Court expressed concern over unnecessary judicial intervention in cases where medical termination of pregnancy is justified under statutory and constitutional provisions – Held: Delays in referring cases to the Medical Board cause unnecessary mental and physical distress to victims – Directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline the process, ensuring that cases are promptly evaluated by the Medical Board without requiring court intervention unless legally necessary [Paras 22-25, 33-36].
 

Civil - Partition Suit – Challenge to Prior Partition – No Partition by Metes and Bounds Proven – The original plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession, while the defendants opposed the suit, claiming a prior partition in 1974 and exclusive ownership based on tenancy rights – The First Appellate Court held that there was no legally recognized partition and that the suit lands were joint family properties inherited from the common ancestor, Waman – Held: Mutation entries alone do not prove partition by metes and bounds—Defendants failed to prove independent ownership—Plaintiffs entitled to partition and separate possession [Paras 10-16].

Tenancy Rights – Joint Family Property – Purchase Certificate under Tenancy Act – The defendants contended that Gat No. 70A was self-acquired as it was purchased under tenancy laws – The plaintiffs argued that the tenancy continued in the name of the joint family and that the land was ancestral – The First Appellate Court ruled that Waman was the original tenant, and after his death, the tenancy continued on behalf of the joint family – Held: Mere issuance of a certificate under Section 32M of the Tenancy Act in the defendant’s name does not confer exclusive ownership; tenancy continued for the benefit of all legal heirs [Paras 13-15].

Hindu Succession Act – Determination of Legal Heirs – Rights of Step-Sons – The First Appellate Court incorrectly allotted a one-third share to the plaintiffs – The court reconsidered the shares under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act – Held: Defendant No. 1, being the stepson of plaintiff No. 2, is not entitled to inherit from her share—Plaintiffs entitled to a greater share than determined by the lower court—Share determination modified [Paras 28-31].

Exclusion of Land – Alleged Consent-Based Transfer – The First Appellate Court excluded 2 anas 4 paise land, reasoning that it was sold by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 (maternal sister) – Plaintiffs contended there was no valid transfer – Held: Defendant No. 2 is not a legal heir under Hindu law—No valid sale deed produced—Exclusion of land from partition decree set aside [Paras 25-27].

Final Decision – The Second Appeal filed by the defendants dismissed – The Cross Objection filed by the plaintiffs allowed – Judgment and decree of partition confirmed with modifications regarding share determination and exclusion of land [Paras 32-34].