Bail in Money Laundering Cases – Section 45 of PMLA – Twin Conditions Evaluated - The Court considered whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for bail, including whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, raising questions about the prosecution’s case – Held: Petitioner satisfies the twin conditions; bail granted [Paras 14-15, 18-19].

Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner has been in custody since 10th March 2023, and the trial involves voluminous evidence with no likelihood of early conclusion. The Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Held: Continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment; bail granted [Paras 22-28].

Restrictive Bail Provisions and Article 21 – Constitutional Balance - The Court observed that restrictive bail conditions under the PMLA cannot override the sacrosanct right to life and liberty under Article 21. A balance must be maintained between statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees – Held: Bail granted with stringent conditions to address apprehensions of witness tampering and flight risk [Paras 23-25].

Decision: The bail application is allowed.
 

Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution – A writ petition under Article 226 challenging an interlocutory order of a civil court was filed – The petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court directed conversion of the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 [Paras 2-3, 4-5].

Distinction Between Articles 226 and 227 – Superintendence and Writ Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from that under Article 226 – Article 227 provides constitutional powers of superintendence over subordinate courts, whereas Article 226 applies to orders of tribunals and statutory authorities – Writ of certiorari does not lie against civil court orders; such orders are subject to appeal, revision, or Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 18, 25-30 of Radhey Shyam].

Conversion of Writ Petition – Compliance with Procedural Rules – High Court Rules amended following Radhey Shyam to stipulate that petitions challenging civil court orders under Article 227 must be filed as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions – Petitioner granted four weeks to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition [Paras 3-4].

Pending Litigation – Expeditious Disposal Directed – Registry directed to facilitate conversion and prioritize listing due to prolonged pendency of the case for over a decade [Para 5].
 

Matrimonial Law - DNA Test for Paternity – Application under Section 45 and 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – The petitioner sought a DNA test of the respondent’s children to challenge their paternity – The trial court dismissed the application, relying on statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, emphasizing that mere doubt does not warrant DNA testing unless justified by compelling evidence [Paras 2-4].

Privacy and Autonomy – Limits on Ordering DNA Tests – Court reiterated that a direction for DNA testing impacts personal autonomy and the privacy of individuals, including minors – Decision: Such orders cannot be made as a matter of course, particularly when the outcome could harm the children’s future [Para 4].

Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 112 can only be rebutted by strong evidence that the husband had no access to the wife during conception – Decision: The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the application for DNA testing was rightly dismissed [Paras 3-4].

Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the trial court’s reliance on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and rejecting the petitioner’s request for DNA testing. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Election Petition – Joinder of Contesting Candidates – Mandatory under Section 82(a) of the Act – The Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No.7 and sought his own election but failed to implead all contesting candidates as Respondents – The Court held that Section 82(a) of the Act is mandatory, requiring dismissal of an Election Petition in case of non-compliance – Filing a subsequent application for impleadment does not cure the defect [Paras 12-14, 23-25, 30].

Election Petition – Time Limit under Section 81 – Impleadment after 45 Days Impermissible – The Petition, filed beyond the statutory 45-day limit under Section 81 of the Act, was barred by limitation – Application for impleadment of contesting candidates after the limitation period cannot be entertained as it violates the statutory framework [Paras 24-27].

Role of Election Commission – Improper Parties in Election Petition – The Court reiterated that Election Commission and other officials (Respondent Nos.1-6) are not necessary parties in an Election Petition – Proper joinder is limited to returned and contesting candidates as per the Act [Paras 12, 28].

No Scope for Post-Filing Amendments – Fundamental Defect Irremediable – The Court ruled that amendments to cure fundamental defects such as non-joinder of necessary parties cannot be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC – The Election Petition must be valid at the time of filing [Paras 22-23].

Decision:

The Election Petition was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 82(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and for being time-barred under Section 81. The Court held that:

Joinder of Contesting Candidates: The Petitioner’s failure to implead all contesting candidates as Respondents, as mandated under Section 82(a), constituted a fatal defect. This fundamental defect could not be cured by filing an application for impleadment after the statutory limitation period of 45 days had expired.

Impleadment after Limitation Period: Application (Lodging) No. 27786 of 2024, filed for summoning contesting candidates, was rejected as it neither sought their impleadment explicitly nor could cure the defect of late filing under Section 81.

Improper Parties: Respondent Nos. 1-6 (Election Commission, Returning Officer, and State authorities) were found to be improper parties in the Election Petition, as per settled law.

No Amendment Permissible: The Court ruled that allowing an amendment to include contesting candidates after the filing period would contravene the mandatory scheme of the Act.

Recall Applications – Basis for Recall – No Grounds Made Out – Applications Dismissed - The Court examined the recall applications filed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to revisit its previous order dated 28/02/2024. The petitioners argued that the order was based on their counsel's misunderstanding of the Tribunal's directions regarding the respondents’ status as "Initial Constituents" under the Staff Recruitment Rules, 2022. The Court held that such applications could not be entertained solely on the ground of an advocate's alleged misunderstanding, as it would undermine judicial discipline – Held: Recall applications dismissed [Paras 14-27].

Concessions by Counsel – Binding Nature – Cannot Be Resiled Without Valid Grounds - The Court emphasized that concessions made by counsel in judicial proceedings are binding unless proven to be unauthorized. SAI failed to demonstrate that the counsel acted beyond instructions when seeking extension of time to comply with the Tribunal’s order – Held: No valid ground to recall the earlier order [Paras 20-24].

Contempt Proceedings – Tribunal to Decide Compliance – No Opinion Expressed by Court - SAI contended that the order sought to be recalled might influence contempt proceedings pending before the Tribunal. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and left the matter to be decided by the Tribunal – Held: Contempt issues to be addressed separately [Paras 28-32].

Purpose of Judicial Orders – Compliance and Finality - The Court reiterated the importance of compliance with judicial orders and cautioned against practices that disrupt judicial finality, emphasizing that recall applications should not be misused to revisit concluded issues – Held: Judicial discipline upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision: The applications for recall of the order dated 28/02/2024 are dismissed. The right of the petitioners to contest contempt proceedings before the Tribunal remains reserved, and no opinion is expressed on the merits of the pending contempt matters.
 

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Public Element Absent – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner sought reinstatement following his termination by Webcon Consulting (India) Limited, asserting that the entity discharged public functions and fell under the ambit of "State" under Article 12. The Court, analyzing the shareholding structure and operations of Webcon, found no deep or pervasive government control. It held that Webcon was not a government company and that internal employment matters lacked the public element necessary to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Held: Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 16-19].

Termination of Service – Staff Rules Validly Applied – No Contravention Found - The petitioner alleged that the Managing Director lacked authority to terminate his employment and that the termination contravened Staff Rule 5. The Court found that the termination complied with the staff rules, which allowed dismissal for disciplinary or integrity issues without notice. The petitioner failed to provide evidence contradicting the grounds of termination. Additionally, the authority of the Managing Director was validated by shareholder approval in proceedings before the NCLT – Held: Termination upheld; no grounds for interference [Paras 19-20].

Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – Scope Limited to Public Law Element - The Court reiterated that while bodies performing public functions are amenable to writ jurisdiction, internal decisions involving private employment contracts, absent statutory governance, fall outside the ambit of Article 226. Actions lacking a public law element cannot invoke constitutional remedies – Held: Writ jurisdiction not applicable to purely private contractual matters [Para 19].The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The termination of the petitioner is upheld as per valid application of the company's staff rules.

Land Acquisition – Compensation under 2013 Act – Disputes on Advance Payment – State's Demand for Refund Quashed – Petitioners challenged the State's demand for refund of advance compensation paid for land acquired under the 2013 Act – CIDCO and State authorities contended the land was under Court Receiver's possession and acquisition lapsed – Court ruled the Court Receiver's discharge in 2003 covered the land, negating the refund claim – Advance compensation upheld; State directed to complete acquisition proceedings and pay balance compensation within six weeks [Paras 25-26, 32(b)].

Family Property Dispute – Ranjit's Claims on Ancestral Property – Dismissed as Vexatious – Ranjit sought quashing of acquisition alleging ancestral joint family property rights – Court noted earlier family settlements, orders discharging Court Receiver, and lack of Ranjit's locus in Ashok and Atul's shares – Held: Ranjit's claims baseless and disruptive; petitions dismissed with costs imposed on Ranjit [Paras 30-31, 32(c), 32(d), 32(f)].

Court Receiver – Discharge and Possession – Settlement Binding – Court held that a 1996 settlement agreement, discharging the Court Receiver, covered the disputed property despite incomplete acquisition – Subsequent possession by the State in 2018 deemed valid; disputes over Receiver's possession declared conclusively resolved [Paras 14-18, 25].

Costs and Accountability – Vexatious Litigation and Official Misconduct – Repeated frivolous claims by Ranjit and conflicting affidavits by State officials criticized – Ranjit ordered to pay Rs. 5 lakh each to Ashok and Atul as costs – Chief Secretary of Maharashtra directed to investigate officials' conduct and report within six months [Paras 31, 32(f), 32(g)].

Conviction for Kidnapping – Failure to Prove Threat or Demand for Ransom under Section 364-A IPC – Essential elements under Section 364-A IPC include kidnapping, threat of death, and demand for ransom – Prosecution failed to provide call records or evidence linking cell phones to ransom calls – Decision: Conviction under Section 364-A IPC was set aside; appellants convicted under Section 363 IPC (simple kidnapping) [Paras 10-12, 16-18].

Test Identification Parade – Delay and Reliability – Identification of accused occurred after 70 days in a Test Identification Parade – Prosecution failed to explain delay or provide corroborative evidence to support identification – Decision: Court held that delayed TIP reduces evidentiary reliability, though circumstantial evidence supported conviction under Section 363 IPC [Paras 8-9].

Evidentiary Gaps – Non-production of Call Records and Forensic Evidence – Prosecution did not present call logs, service provider data, or forensic evidence from cell phones alleged to be used for ransom calls – Decision: Prosecution's failure to prove threats and demands led to modification of charges to Section 363 IPC [Paras 13-15].

Sentence Adjustment – Substitution of Life Imprisonment with 7 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment – Appellants' sentence modified as elements of Section 364-A IPC were not established – Decision: Sentence adjusted to 7 years under Section 363 IPC; appellants released as they had already served 7 years in custody [Paras 20-22].

Decision: The appeals were allowed in part. Conviction under Section 364-A IPC was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 363 IPC. The appellants, having served 7 years of imprisonment, were ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case.

Amendment of Recruitment Rules – Validity of Preliminary Notifications – Section 35 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Prescribed Qualifications for Appointments – Amended Rules Not Finalized – Petitioners Not Entitled to Relief – The Court held that a preliminary notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board in 2008 to amend recruitment qualifications for the posts of Thakil, Nadaswaram, and Panchavadyam was not followed by a final notification as required under Section 35 of the Act – In the absence of a final notification, the qualifications prescribed in the final notification of 2001 prevailed, which required completion of Class VIII and experience, and did not mandate certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners, relying on subsequent certificate verification lists, could not insist on appointments, as the certificate qualification was not legally enforceable [Paras 11-13, 15] – Decision: Relief denied.

Appointment Based on Lists – Legal Validity – Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Contrary to Law – Non-Prescribed Qualifications Cannot Confer a Legal Right to Appointment – The Court ruled that no mandamus could be issued to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to appoint petitioners based on their placement in the certificate verification lists when the prescribed qualifications under law did not include certification from Kshethra Kalapeedom – Petitioners lacked a legal right to insist on appointments contrary to rules – Such directions would violate statutory provisions [Paras 15-16, 31] – Decision: Appointments rejected.

Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 – Effect of Recruitment Centralization – Post-2015 Appointments Governed by Recruitment Board – Board Alone Competent to Conduct Recruitment – After the enactment of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015, which came into force on 01/04/2014, the Devaswom Recruitment Board became the sole authority for recruitment to non-hereditary posts – The Travancore Devaswom Board lacked authority to appoint candidates directly based on its earlier lists – Petitioners’ reliance on pre-2014 processes was misplaced, and appointments could only occur through procedures prescribed by the Recruitment Board [Paras 20-22, 25] – Decision: Petition dismissed.

Age Relaxation – No Entitlement in Recruitment Process for Candidates Relied on Outdated Rules – Amendments in 2021 Apply Prospectively – The Court rejected petitioners’ plea for age relaxation in the recruitment process, holding that engagement on daily wages under interim orders conferred no vested right to appointment – Appointments to posts of Nadaswaram-cum-Watcher, Thakil-cum-Watcher, and similar roles would be governed by the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers' and Servants Rules, 2021 – Petitioners, being overaged, were not entitled to special consideration under the amended rules [Paras 29, 33] – Decision: No relief granted.

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Old Rules to Prior Vacancies – Overruled Principle in Rajkumar Case (2023) – The Court held that the principle that vacancies arising prior to rule amendments must be governed by old rules (Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao) stood overruled by the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar (2023) – Petitioners’ reliance on old rules to claim appointments was untenable, especially when no finalized amendments supported their qualifications [Paras 26-27] – Decision: Reliance on outdated rules rejected.