Criminal Law - Interim Bail on Humanitarian Grounds - Medical Emergency of Family Member – The petitioner sought temporary bail, citing his wife’s critical need for spinal surgery requiring his assistance. The Court held that granting interim bail on such humanitarian grounds aligns with the fundamental rights under Article 21, which includes the right to family dignity and the marital duty of support. Bail was granted for 60 days to allow the petitioner to fulfill his role in her care [Paras 2, 8, 10, 11].

Risk Assessment - Non-flight Risk and Documentary Evidence – The Court found the petitioner to be a non-flight risk, with established family ties. Given that the evidence is mostly documentary and has been secured, there was minimal risk of tampering. These factors supported the decision to grant bail without compromising the prosecution's case [Paras 9, 10].

Article 21 - Right to Life and Dignity Extending to Marital Responsibilities – The Court emphasized that Article 21 extends to the right to live with dignity, which encompasses fulfilling marital vows and duties. The petitioner’s request for interim bail was thus acknowledged as part of his right to act as a supportive spouse in a time of medical need, which the Court deemed integral to human dignity [Para 10].

Decision – Petition Allowed with Conditions – The Court granted interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 60 days from the date of his release, with conditions that the petitioner is to surrender upon completion of the period. The order applies to all pending FIRs, and no insolvency certificate is required as part of the bail bond [Paras 11-14].
 

Environmental Law – Suo Motu - Public Trust Doctrine - Environmental Conservation - Rivers and Water Bodies as Public Resources – The Court underscored the doctrine of public trust, emphasizing that natural resources like rivers, lakes, and water bodies are held by the State in trusteeship for public use. It directed the State to prevent private encroachment and protect these resources as part of its duty under Article 21. Citing M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Court highlighted that the government must manage natural resources to ensure their availability for the welfare of the public and the environment [Paras 13, 14].

Protection of Rivers and Water Bodies - Duty of State Authorities - Immediate Action Required – The Court ordered the formation of State, divisional, and district-level committees to monitor encroachment, mandate the removal of illegal constructions on riverbeds, and implement water conservation schemes. Recognizing the threats posed by unchecked encroachment, it emphasized the urgent need for regulatory vigilance and statutory compliance by authorities responsible for environmental protection [Paras 15, 31].

Legal Obligations under Environmental Legislation - Enforcement of Conservation Zones – The Court noted that the River Conservation Zone Regulations of 2015 and other statutory protections remain largely unimplemented. It directed the respondents to enact these regulations effectively, enabling satellite and drone surveillance to detect and prevent encroachment on rivers and water bodies, pursuant to Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment Protection Act [Paras 20, 21, 29].

Directions to Authorities - Establishment of Monitoring and Complaint Mechanisms – To bolster accountability, the Court directed that an online platform be set up for public awareness on the complaint process, with a toll-free number for reporting encroachments. A monitoring system using satellite and drone technologies was mandated to prevent future unauthorized constructions and monitor existing encroachments [Paras 31(VII), 31(VIII)].

Decision – Suo Motu Petition Registered and Directions Issued – The Court issued show-cause notices to the Union and State Governments, requiring reports on measures taken to prevent encroachments and protect rivers and water bodies. The petition was listed for further hearing, with directives for a comprehensive report on compliance with environmental laws and initiatives for water conservation [Paras 32, 34].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Acquittal –Anti-Timed First Information Report (FIR) – Credibility of Prosecution Case – Benefit of Doubt – The prosecution claimed that the FIR was lodged promptly after the murder, yet testimonies indicated it may have been lodged after the body was taken to the police station and post-mortem conducted – The absence of an FIR reference in the post-mortem report, and witness statements suggesting signing on blank papers, cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR – Held: The delayed FIR raises suspicion of afterthought and embellishment, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 26-27, 29-30].

Inconsistent Testimony of Key Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) provided conflicting accounts of critical events, including the timing of police notification, conduct of the inquest, and identification of the assailants, suggesting unreliability in their presence and credibility – Held: Testimonies riddled with contradictions cannot be relied upon to convict, particularly in the absence of corroborative evidence [Paras 16-18, 34].

Defective Investigation – Procedural Lapses and Missing Evidence – The Investigating Officer failed to collect crucial evidence, such as blood-stained clothes of witnesses and samples from the scene, and did not record independent witness statements – Held: Procedural lapses compounded doubts over the prosecution’s narrative, underscoring the need for benefit of doubt to the accused [Paras 36-38].

Motive and Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – The prosecution cited previous enmity as a motive for the crime; however, the Supreme Court has held that enmity can be a double-edged weapon, suggesting both motive and potential for false implication – Held: Motive alone, without reliable evidence, is insufficient for conviction [Paras 43-44].

Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal – The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies, defective investigation, and lack of corroborative evidence – Held: Convictions were unsafe and liable to be set aside – Appeals allowed, and appellants acquitted [Paras 45-47].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the trial court’s judgment. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless wanted in other cases, subject to compliance with procedural requirements.

Civil Procedure – Recall of Witness – Exercise of Discretion Under Order XVIII Rule 17 – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner sought to recall DW.1 for cross-examination, contending that a crucial issue concerning the division of suit property required further examination of the witness – Held: Though the trial court initially denied the petitioner’s request, citing previous missed opportunities, the High Court recognized the relevance of the issue and allowed a final opportunity for cross-examination upon payment of exemplary costs. Emphasis was placed on avoiding undue delay and ensuring fairness in litigation [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Discretion – Importance of Final Opportunity Subject to Conditions – Cost Imposed to Prevent Frivolous Delay - Noting the petitioner’s repeated delays, the Court mandated a cost of Rs.10,000 as a deterrent, specifying that failure to cross-examine on the next date would result in a summary decision on the issue – This approach balances judicial efficiency with fairness, ensuring the plaintiff's opportunity without indefinite prolongation of proceedings [Para 10].

Decision - The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court’s order and permitting the plaintiff a last opportunity to cross-examine DW.1, contingent on a Rs.10,000 payment to the respondents [Para 11].
 

Taxation Law – GST - Excess Stock Found – Applicability of Sections 73/74 vs. Section 130 – Proceedings Quashed – The petitioner contested the use of Section 130 of the UPGST Act for proceedings related to the discovery of excess stock during a survey, claiming that the correct legal approach should involve Sections 73 or 74 – Held: The court agreed with the petitioner, ruling that excess stock discovered during a survey should lead to proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 for tax determination, not Section 130, which involves confiscation – The orders passed under Section 130 by the adjudicating and appellate authorities were quashed [Paras 8-11].

Survey Procedure – Physical Verification and Documentation – The petitioner argued that the stock was noted by eye estimation without proper physical verification or video recording – The court emphasized the necessity for accurate and documented procedures in determining excess stock [Paras 4, 8].

Relevant Precedents – The court relied on the decision in S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, [Writ Tax No. 1082 of 2022, decided on 25/07/2024], and reaffirmed the judgment in Metenere Limited v. Union of India, holding that Section 35(6) of the CGST Act mandates tax determination under Sections 73 or 74 when unaccounted goods are discovered [Paras 9-12].

Legal Bar on Section 130 – The court referenced the judgment in M/s Shree Om Steels v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2, [Writ Tax No. 1007 of 2022], reiterating that invoking Section 130 for tax determination due to excess stock is inappropriate, as it should only be employed when there is intent to evade payment coupled with contravention of the Act [Paras 9-12].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the orders dated 18/07/2019 and 19/08/2023 were quashed. The court ruled that proceedings based on the discovery of excess stock must be conducted under Sections 73 or 74, not Section 130 of the UPGST Act.

Administrative Law – Premature Transfer – Transfer Guidelines Violated – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner contested his premature transfer, citing non-compliance with the Transfer Guidelines, which require minimum tenure in a post and approval for premature displacement – Held: The High Court found that the petitioner was prematurely removed without necessary approvals, in violation of both Transfer Guidelines and precedent. The Court granted relief, emphasizing that premature transfer disrupts administrative stability and is unsustainable absent compelling public interest [Paras 4-7, 12].

Interpretation of Transfer Guidelines – Distinction Between Transfer and Deployment - The Court clarified that “transfer” involves movement between different headquarters, while “deployment” refers to intra-headquarters changes. The petitioner’s reassignment qualified as a transfer rather than deployment, necessitating adherence to tenure and approval requirements, which were overlooked – Noted: The Tribunal’s order disregarded the intended interpretation of “transfer” in light of recent judicial precedent, further justifying the petition's success [Paras 8-11].

Decision - The writ petition was allowed, the Service Tribunal’s order quashed, and the petitioner reinstated to his original position as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District [Para 13].
 

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Applicability in Labour Disputes – Section 11, CPC – Second Reference Barred - The petitioner, terminated from employment through a contractor, filed a second reference with the Labour Court following the employer’s payment of differential wages under the Minimum Wages Act – The court held that the second reference was barred by res judicata as the issue of employment status was settled in an earlier reference in 2007, which went unchallenged by the petitioner – Held: Payment under Minimum Wages Act does not establish employment relationship with principal employer; the second reference is non-maintainable and dismissal of the petition was upheld [Paras 15-18].

Principle of Res Judicata – Labour Court’s Rulings Final When Unchallenged - The court reiterated that res judicata applies to Labour Court proceedings, as seen in the finality of the first reference decision on employment status – Allowing multiple references on the same cause of action would disrupt litigation finality and contradict the principle of res judicata, a doctrine that upholds litigation closure and judicial efficiency [Paras 16-18, 21].

Minimum Wages Act Payments – Limited Scope – Non-Implication for Employment Status - The petitioner argued that minimum wages payment inferred an employment relationship – The court clarified that differential wage payments do not alter employment status under the principal employer when work is performed through a contractor, nor do such payments imply regularization or nullify contractual limitations on employment [Para 19].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court upheld the Labour Court’s ruling, dismissing the second reference as barred by res judicata and affirming that payment of differential wages does not alter employment status with the principal employer.

Bar on Divorce Petition Presentation within One Year of Marriage – Section 14, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The appellant argued that the divorce petition filed by the respondent was statutorily barred since it was presented within one year of marriage without seeking requisite court permission – Held: As per Section 14(1), a petition for divorce is barred within one year of marriage unless exceptional hardship or depravity is shown by application to the court, which was absent here – The bar is based on the date of petition presentation, not subsequent procedural actions – Accordingly, the lower court’s failure to address this statutory bar rendered the divorce proceedings procedurally flawed [Paras 12, 13].

Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce – Burden of Proof and Relevance of Conduct during Litigation – Section 13(1-A)(ii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal allowed - The court below erred in basing findings of cruelty on the appellant’s conduct during litigation rather than on specific incidents of cruelty during the marriage – Judicial scrutiny should be limited to behavior within the marital relationship – Mere litigious resistance by the appellant to divorce proceedings cannot constitute cruelty – Held: No evidence of cruelty in marriage justified a decree of divorce; therefore, the court’s findings were unsustainable [Paras 16-17].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Statutory Ground for Divorce – Scope of Relief under Hindu Marriage Act – Appeal allowed - The lower court’s reliance on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a factor in granting divorce was erroneous, as such a ground is absent under the statutory framework of the HMA – Appeals are confined to statutory grounds, and courts lack authority to dissolve marriage solely based on breakdown without legislative provision – Finding of irretrievable breakdown was held irrelevant and set aside [Paras 18-19].

Costs and Refund Order – Cost Awarded to Appellant – The court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant, payable from the deposit made by the respondent in the court below – Remaining amount to be refunded to the respondent after satisfying any outstanding maintenance dues to the appellant [Para 22].

Divorce – Mental Disorder – Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act – Claim for Divorce Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The appellant-husband sought divorce on the ground that the respondent-wife suffered from schizophrenia, rendering her unsuitable for marital life – Held: Evidence failed to prove that the alleged mental disorder was of such a nature and degree as to justify the dissolution of marriage – Mere existence of a disorder does not suffice unless it is shown to gravely impair marital life – Family Court’s findings upheld on this ground [Paras 33-45].

Cruelty – Continuous Separation – Long Period of Separation Amounts to Cruelty – Divorce Granted – Parties lived separately for over a decade, with no attempts to reconcile – Held: Continuous separation causes mental cruelty; refusal to cohabit or oppose divorce without plausible reason constitutes cruelty – Family Court erred in ignoring evidence of separation and its implications [Paras 20-31, 46-50].

Desertion – Willful Abandonment – Divorce Upheld – The respondent-wife’s prolonged absence from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and failure to contest the appeal demonstrated animus deserendi – Held: These actions amounted to desertion as defined under Section 13 of the Act – Family Court’s findings reversed [Paras 26-32, 48].

Decision: The judgment and decree dated 29/04/2023 passed by the Family Court dismissing the appellant’s divorce suit were set aside. The marriage between the parties was dissolved on grounds of cruelty and desertion.