Constitutional Law – Reservation Policy – Affirmative Action – The High Court of Patna examined the constitutionality of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023, which enhanced reservation in Bihar to 65% based on a Caste Survey. The High Court held that the amendments breached the 50% limit on reservations established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, and affirmed by subsequent judgments. The Court found no extenuating circumstances to justify the breach and deemed the amendments unconstitutional [Paras 1-84].

Reservations – Adequate vs. Proportionate Representation – The High Court emphasized that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution provide for adequate representation, not proportionate representation. The Court reiterated that the principle of adequate representation does not equate to proportional representation and that any breach of the 50% reservation ceiling must be justified by exceptional circumstances, such as those inherent in far-flung and remote areas, which were not demonstrated in the present case [Paras 42-43, 67-70, 84].

Evidence Evaluation – The Court scrutinized the Caste Survey conducted by the State of Bihar, finding that it lacked an in-depth analysis and was based merely on proportional population data. The Court concluded that the State's enhancement of reservation percentages was not supported by a rational and scientific analysis of the collected data and did not consider factors like economic and social advancement of certain communities within the backward classes [Paras 61-73].

Decision – The High Court set aside the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Amendment Act, 2023, and the Bihar Reservation (in Admission to Educational Institutions) Amendment Act, 2023, as ultra vires the Constitution and violative of the equality clause under Articles 14, 15, and 16. The writ petitions challenging the amendments were allowed [Para 84].

Contempt of Court – Appeal under Section 19(1) – Maintainability – Appeal against Single Judge’s order directing compliance with prior orders – High Court emphasized contempt jurisdiction does not extend to issuing new directives or modifying existing orders – Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by directing compliance with educational authority’s order during contempt proceedings – Appeal allowed, Single Judge's order set aside [Paras 1-30].

Judicial Review – Contempt Proceedings – High Court’s scope in contempt cases limited to ensuring compliance with existing orders – Cannot traverse beyond original order's scope or issue new directives – Remanded for proper adjudication of contempt issue without issuing additional directives [Paras 24-30].

Decision- Contempt appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 8th April 2024 of the learned Single Judge in Con.Case(C) No. 943 of 2024 is set aside. The Single Judge is directed to proceed with the contempt case in accordance with law, without issuing new directives beyond ensuring compliance with existing orders.

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on Admissible Portion – The Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely and must be considered with due care. The admissible portion of PW-5’s testimony, corroborated by other reliable witnesses, indicated that the appellants had kidnapped the deceased. [Paras 9-10, 12-14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Delay in Lodging FIR – The trial court observed no undue delay in lodging the FIR and found the evidence regarding the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the deceased credible, notwithstanding the partial hostility of PW-5 and PW-6. [Paras 9, 13-14].

Burden of Proof – Homicidal Death – The Court reiterated that once the kidnapping is proved and the deceased is found dead, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the cause of death, which they failed to do. The conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC was upheld based on the evidence and the failure of the accused to rebut the prosecution’s case. [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fines for the offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC. [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application for quashing criminal proceedings on the grounds of absence of prima facie case – Court refused to quash proceedings, stating that factual disputes must be resolved during the trial – No abuse of process or grounds for quashing found – Disputed questions of fact and technical reports must be examined by the trial court – Reference to established case law on the limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing proceedings [Paras 1-16].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. Explains the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice – Reiterates that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Cites precedents emphasizing the necessity for caution in exercising these powers and the distinct nature of inherent jurisdiction from the trial process [Paras 7-13].

Bail Consideration – Supreme Court Guidelines Court advised that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, the application should be considered expeditiously in light of Supreme Court guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Applicant directed to file for bail within three weeks [Para 17-18].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Applicant advised to surrender and apply for bail within the specified timeframe, with directions for the trial court to consider the bail application promptly in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action and Limitation:

Appeal against the trial court’s rejection of a suit for partition under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC – Appellants contended the plaint disclosed cause of action and was within limitation – Trial court had dismissed the suit citing absence of cause of action and barred by limitation due to an earlier suit’s withdrawal without liberty to file afresh – High Court observed that the plaint disclosed necessary facts constituting cause of action and limitation issues required trial consideration – Rejection of plaint deemed inappropriate at preliminary stage [Paras 1-14].

Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC – Bar on Fresh Suit:

Withdrawal of previous suit based on defendants’ assurance to settle – High Court noted withdrawal memo indicated potential settlement, not a simple abandonment – Held plaintiffs did not lose right to file fresh suit as new cause of action arose from breach of assurance – Cited coordinate bench decision affirming maintainability of second suit for partition in similar circumstances [Paras 15-20].

Suppression of Facts – Material Impact on Suit:

Trial court erred in dismissing suit solely on ground of suppression of previous suit – High Court highlighted necessity of trial to determine true nature of alleged partition – Directed plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 1 lakh to safeguard defendants’ interests pending trial [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Impugned order and decree set aside – Suit restored for trial on merits – Plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within six weeks – Trial court to determine partition claims considering both parties’ contentions [Paras 28-29].

Condonation of Delay – Sufficient Cause – Petitioner sought condonation of delay of 2361 days in filing an appeal – Claimed unawareness of suit and its result till recently – Respondents opposed, alleging falsehood in petitioner’s claims – Court emphasized liberal construction of “sufficient cause” to advance substantial justice – Considered petitioner’s plausible explanation and substantial questions of fact and law involved – Delay condoned [Paras 1-18].

“Government vs. Private Litigants” – Liberal Approach – Reference to principles where government involved – Emphasis on substantial justice over technical considerations – Inapplicability of such latitude to private litigants – Consideration of bona fides and diligence in delay matters – Recognition that judicial discretion must balance both parties’ interests [Paras 7-10].

Case Management and Procedural Lapses – Examination of concurrent posting of related cases – Lack of direct knowledge attribution between separate suits – Assessment of petitioner’s awareness and action upon discovering suit details – Rejection of collusion allegations based on common legal representation [Paras 11-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Delay of 2361 days in filing appeal condoned – Emphasis on merits over procedural delays in interest of justice [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction for murder – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for brutally killing Vinod Kumar – Trial court’s judgment based on eye-witness testimonies and corroborative evidence upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 1 to 3 scrutinized despite their relationship with the deceased – Court finds their testimonies reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence – The presence of eye witnesses at the crime scene confirmed by timely FIR and inquest report [Paras 13-22].

FIR and Inquest Report – Timeliness and accuracy – FIR lodged within short time after the incident – Inquest report conducted soon after FIR, listing the same eyewitnesses – Validates the presence of witnesses and the occurrence of the crime as described [Paras 20-22].

Motive – Political Disputes – Political rivalry between the families of the accused and deceased traced back to 2006 MPTC elections – Despite the lapse of time, lingering enmity considered credible motive – Court emphasizes that motive is secondary to direct evidence [Paras 13-14].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination – Accused’s denial and alternative defense rejected – Court finds no merit in the appellant’s claims – Accused’s defense of false implication due to political rivalry dismissed based on strong evidence [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence affirmed – No costs [Para 23].

Railway Accident – Bona Fide Passenger – Claim for compensation due to the death of the appellant’s son in a railway accident – Tribunal rejected the claim stating the deceased was not a bona fide passenger – Appellant contended that the deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded the train, supported by witness testimony [Paras 1-4].

Burden of Proof – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Appellant must prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger – Tribunal found lack of evidence as no ticket was produced and witness testimony was from a relative, thus potentially biased – Importance of balancing testimonial evidence with corroborative material [Paras 5-15].

Railway Act – Section 2(29) Definition of Passenger – To qualify as a passenger, one must have a valid ticket – Tribunal noted no records of ticket issuance on the stated date – Rebuttal evidence not contested by appellant – Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not proven to be a bona fide passenger [Paras 15-17].

Practical Impossibility – Tribunal’s Finding – Claim that the deceased fell from the train and was run over by the same train deemed impractical by Tribunal – No inquest report or credible evidence to support the claim – Appellate Court agreed with Tribunal’s reasoning [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s rejection of the claim upheld – Lack of conclusive evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger – Emphasis on the need for credible and corroborative evidence in such claims [Paras 18-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Dowry Death – Petitioners seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Allegations of dowry harassment leading to suicide – Petitioners A.4 and A.5, relatives of A.1 (husband) – Petitioners assert no involvement in marital disputes or the alleged harassment – Opposed by Prosecution on grounds of ongoing investigation – Court examines role, accusations, and material on record – Finds no prima facie evidence linking petitioners directly to harassment – Emphasizes principles of bail, liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners’ cooperation with investigation noted – Orders anticipatory bail with conditions [Paras 1-15].

Bail Principles – Liberty and Presumption of Innocence – Court underscores importance of liberty and presumption of innocence – Arrest as a last resort – Right to bail as fundamental – Court criticizes indiscriminate arrests without adequate cause – Necessity of careful and cautious exercise of power to authorize detention – Ensures protection of personal liberty [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Court directs petitioners to surrender before the Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station within two weeks – Conditions imposed for cooperation with investigation, including regular appearance and non-interference with witnesses – Observations limited to anticipatory bail decision, not indicative of case merits – Petition allowed, pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 14-15].