Service Law – Recruitment – Two-Child Norm – Relaxation for Widows – The petitioner's candidature for the post of School Lecturer was rejected due to having more than two children after 01.06.2002 – The petitioner contended that a disabled child should not be counted under the two-child norm as per the notification dated 28.02.2011 – The respondents argued that even excluding the disabled child, the petitioner still had three children, exceeding the permissible limit – Held: The amendment introduced vide notification dated 16.03.2023 extended relaxation to all widows, not just those under compassionate appointment, making the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature unjustified [Paras 5-7, 13.3, 19-22].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Articles 14 & 16 – Discriminatory Treatment of Widows – The petitioner argued that widows applying under compassionate appointment were granted relaxation from the two-child norm, while those applying on merit were not – The Court held that such differential treatment was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Held: All widows must be treated equally regarding recruitment relaxations, and the petitioner’s exclusion was unconstitutional [Paras 6, 17, 19-20].

Beneficial Legislation – Liberal Interpretation – Welfare-Oriented Approach – The 2023 amendment removing the restriction of relaxation only to compassionate appointees was considered a beneficial provision – The Court emphasized that welfare provisions should be interpreted liberally to achieve their intended objective – Held: The petitioner, being a widow from an SC community and the sole breadwinner for her children, including a disabled child, deserved the benefit of the amendment [Paras 13.3, 14, 18-20].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Interference in Recruitment Matters – The respondents argued that the recruitment process had already concluded – The Court held that under Article 226, it had the power to rectify arbitrary and unconstitutional actions – Held: The petitioner’s exclusion was contrary to constitutional principles and required judicial intervention to uphold fairness and justice [Paras 16, 21-22].

Humanitarian Consideration – Socio-Economic Hardship – Parens Patriae Doctrine – The petitioner, as the sole earner, was responsible for raising four children, including a specially-abled son – The Court took a sympathetic approach, stating that the judiciary must act as a guardian for vulnerable citizens – Held: The petitioner’s financial instability warranted judicial relief, and denying her appointment would cause irreparable hardship [Paras 23-25].
 

Criminal Law - Corruption Law – Appeal against conviction – Acquittal - Demand and Acceptance – Proof of Guilt – Essential Requirements – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, contending absence of credible evidence to prove demand and acceptance of bribe – Held: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing the offence – Prosecution failed to establish these elements through oral or documentary evidence – Conviction cannot be sustained on mere recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand and acceptance [Paras 29-31].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Admissibility – The prosecution relied on recorded conversations as evidence of demand for bribe but failed to provide the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act – Witnesses did not identify the appellant's voice, and no voice samples were collected for comparison – Held: In the absence of compliance with Section 65B and corroborative evidence, the transcripts are inadmissible and cannot be relied upon for conviction [Paras 26-28].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – Material witnesses, including the complainant and witnesses to the trap proceedings, turned hostile and denied allegations of demand and acceptance – Complainant stated that the bribe money was forcibly put into the appellant’s pocket under pressure from Anti-Corruption Bureau officials – Held: Testimonies of hostile witnesses create doubt about the prosecution’s case, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused [Paras 13-16].

Trap Proceedings – Procedural Lapses – Trap proceedings conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau were marred by procedural irregularities – Prosecution failed to establish a clear signal for trap activation or corroborate the presence of demand or acceptance – Recovery of tainted money without corroborative evidence is insufficient for conviction [Paras 22-24].

Judicial Interpretation – Burden of Proof in Corruption Cases – Reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on surmises, conjectures, or probabilities – Held: Trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on inadmissible evidence and uncorroborated testimonies [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04/01/2016 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of CrPC [Paras 41-44].
 

Criminal Law - Sanction for Prosecution – Judicial Review – Validity of Orders Declining Sanction – Orders Set Aside – Refusal to grant sanction for prosecution is subject to judicial review – The sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind and consider all relevant evidence – In the instant case, the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to consider incriminating evidence presented by the CBI – Held, the impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and are legally unsustainable – The matter is remanded for fresh consideration within one month [Paras 31-36, 55].

CBI's Jurisdiction – Scope of Investigation – Transfer of Investigation – Investigation Upheld – Notifications issued by the State of Haryana and the Central Government extended the jurisdiction of the CBI beyond the primary offence – CBI was competent to investigate not only the murder case but also the wrongful implication of an accused by the SIT – Evidence regarding false implication was intrinsically linked to the main offence, justifying CBI’s jurisdiction – Held, CBI had legal authority to probe the fabrication of evidence by SIT members [Paras 45-49].

Joint Trial – Offences Committed in the Same Transaction – Section 223(d) Cr.P.C. – Ordered to be Tried Together – Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be tried together – Since the fabricated evidence against Ashok Kumar was directly linked to the murder investigation, a separate trial would prejudice the prosecution – Held, the trial of the members of the SIT should proceed jointly with the main accused to avoid inconsistent findings [Paras 51-54].

False Implication – Creation of False Evidence – Accountability of Investigating Officers – Declined Sanction Unjustified – Evidence demonstrated that SIT members created false documents and coerced witnesses to frame an innocent person – Such conduct cannot be deemed as "minor inaccuracies" – The attempt to shield erring officers amounted to arbitrary action by the sanctioning authority – Held, the false implication of an innocent person is a serious violation of justice, necessitating prosecution [Paras 38-42].

Duty of Sanctioning Authority – Application of Mind – Orders Lacked Reasoning – The authority refusing sanction must consider all relevant material and provide detailed reasons – In the present case, the refusal was based on irrelevant considerations and failed to address crucial evidence – Held, the sanctioning authority must decide afresh in accordance with law, ensuring due application of mind [Paras 43-45, 55].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Maintainability of Civil Suit Against Partition Proceedings – The petitioners sought rejection of the plaint contending that the suit challenging partition proceedings was barred under Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – The respondents contended that the partition proceedings were vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice, including lack of notice and ex parte orders – Held: A civil suit is maintainable where allegations of violation of natural justice are raised, and such questions are triable issues – Trial Court's decision rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld [Paras 4-7].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Challenge to Revenue Proceedings – Violation of Natural Justice as a Ground for Civil Suit – While Section 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act bars civil suits against partition proceedings, an exception exists where the proceedings are challenged on the ground of lack of notice or procedural infirmities – Held: The Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the revenue authorities acted in violation of principles of natural justice [Para 5].

Precedent – Punjab and Haryana High Court – Applicability of Joginder Singh v. Pritam Singh (2023) – The Court relied on Joginder Singh v. Pritam Singh and others, Civil Revision No. 6186 of 2018 (decided on 19.07.2023), which held that when partition proceedings are challenged on the ground of lack of due service or violation of natural justice, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred – Held: The case falls within the exception outlined in Joginder Singh, allowing the Civil Court to adjudicate the matter [Para 6].

Civil Procedure – Narrow Interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – The Court reiterated that for considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined – Since the plaint alleged violation of natural justice, the question of maintainability was a matter of trial – Held: The rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was justified [Para 7].

Land Disputes – Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction and Title Disputes – The plaintiffs also sought relief of permanent injunction and claimed discrepancies in land allocation in partition proceedings – Held: Since issues related to title and possession were also involved, the civil suit was maintainable [Para 8].

Decision: – Civil Revision dismissed. The trial court's order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC upheld.
 

Permanent Injunction – Co-sharers – Right to Possession – Encroachment – Plaintiffs, a registered management committee, claimed exclusive possession of the suit property and sought a permanent injunction against Defendant No.1 from interfering in its management, possession, and structures – Defendant No.1 argued that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public land – The lower courts found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive settled possession and had a valid electricity connection in their name – Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of 14 marlas – Held: A co-sharer cannot dispossess another co-sharer by force, and any dispute regarding possession must be resolved through legal proceedings – Injunction upheld, and the second appeal dismissed [Paras 15-21] – Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Encroachment – Right to Remove – Defendant’s Lack of Locus Standi – The Defendant contended that plaintiffs had encroached on public land – However, the passage land was gifted to plaintiffs via a resolution, and even assuming encroachment, the Defendant had no right to remove it – Held: Any action regarding alleged encroachment must be taken by the competent municipal authorities and not by private individuals – Courts restrained the defendant from interfering with possession except in due course of law [Paras 19-22] – Decision: The decree of permanent injunction upheld, and appeal dismissed.
 

Rent Law - Eviction – Willful Default in Payment of Rent – Tenant’s Knowledge of Ownership – Eviction Upheld – The petitioners challenged their eviction, claiming lack of knowledge of the landlord's ownership and absence of attornment notice. The Court held that the tenants were aware of the partition and ownership rights, as evidenced by admissions in cross-examination. Failure to pay rent since 2002 was deemed willful default. Findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld as not perverse (Paragraphs 19 to 22).

Right to Immediate Possession – Landlord Aged Above 65 – Section 10C of the Act – The Court invoked Section 10C, introduced via Amendment Act No. 17 of 2005, which grants a landlord aged 65 or more the right to immediate possession. The landlord, being 68 at the time of filing the eviction petition, was entitled to invoke this statutory right. The Rent Controller was statutorily obligated to take steps for possession without requiring separate applications from the landlord (Paragraphs 14 to 18).

Evidence – Tenant's Receipts for Rent Payment – Claim Rejected – The petitioners presented money order receipts and postal acknowledgments to show regular rent payment. However, the Court found that these documents did not disprove the willful default, especially in light of the tenant’s cross-examination admissions acknowledging knowledge of the landlord’s ownership (Paragraphs 8 to 22).

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Tenants granted six months' time to vacate the premises – No order as to costs (Paragraphs 23 to 24).
 

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act – The appellant challenged an arbitral award granting compensation to the respondent for project delays and related claims – Held: The Court’s jurisdiction under Section 37 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence – The Arbitral Tribunal’s findings will not be interfered with unless they violate public policy or the fundamental policy of Indian law – Award upheld except for an adjustment of prior payments [Paras 16-17].

Double Payment – Public Policy Violation – Need for Set-Off – Appellant contended that an Expert Committee had assessed the claim and directed payment of ₹6.01 crores, out of which ₹3.5 crores had already been paid – The Tribunal failed to account for this payment, leading to a risk of double payment – Held: A failure to adjust prior payments towards the same claim would violate public policy and fundamental principles of justice – The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court for reconsideration of this aspect [Paras 22-25].

Limited Judicial Review – Commercial Court’s Role in Arbitration Proceedings – The Commercial Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge under Section 34 without recording findings on the prior payment issue – Held: While courts must exercise minimal interference in arbitral matters, they are duty-bound to prevent unjust enrichment – The Commercial Court should have examined whether the ₹3.5 crore payment was towards the same claim and whether an adjustment was necessary [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The appeals are partly allowed. The judgment and order of the Commercial Court dated 03.08.2024 in Com.A.P. Nos. 106 to 117 of 2023 are set aside to the limited extent of reconsidering the prior payment of ₹3.5 crores. The matter is remitted to the Commercial Court, which shall determine whether this payment was related to the claims before the Arbitral Tribunal and, if so, ensure an appropriate set-off. Other findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and Commercial Court remain undisturbed. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving.
 

Rape Case – Age Determination – School Records – Standard of Proof – Acquittal – Appeal allowed – The appellant was convicted under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC for allegedly committing rape on a prosecutrix aged 12 years – Prosecution relied on the school register to establish the prosecutrix's age – Held: School register entries are inadmissible without testimony of the person making the entry or providing the information – Birth certificate and other school documents lacked corroboration, and no medical examination was conducted to determine the prosecutrix’s age – Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident – Conviction unsustainable in the absence of reliable evidence [Paras 14–18].

Rape Allegation – Solitary Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability and Corroboration – Prosecution relied on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix – Medical examination of the prosecutrix revealed no injuries or signs of sexual assault, and the prosecutrix was found to be habitual to intercourse – Held: Sole testimony of the prosecutrix must inspire confidence to be the basis for conviction – Prosecutrix’s admission that the complaint was lodged under the influence of others, and her inconsistent statements, diminished her credibility – Conviction cannot rest on untrustworthy evidence [Paras 19–22].

Benefit of Doubt – Insufficient Evidence – Acquittal of Accused – The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Absence of eyewitnesses, contradictions in statements of witnesses, and lack of corroborative evidence made the prosecution case unreliable – Held: Appellant acquitted of all charges, and benefit of doubt extended to him [Paras 22–23].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC recorded by the Trial Court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt. His bail bonds will remain in force for six months as per Section 437A of CrPC. [Paras 22–23].
 

PIL - Right to Health – Fundamental Right – State’s Obligation – The court reaffirmed the right to health as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: Providing adequate medical facilities, staffing, and infrastructure is a constitutional obligation of the state – Directed the State of Karnataka to address the acute shortage of medical personnel and upgrade infrastructure in Primary Health Centres (PHCs) across rural and urban areas – Decision: State authorities directed to implement specific measures and submit progress reports every six months [Paras 6, 7, 10.1].

Healthcare Infrastructure – Vacancies in Medical Personnel – Need for Immediate Recruitment – Highlighted the significant vacancies in posts for medical officers, technicians, pharmacists, nursing officers, and Group-D employees – Held: The State must complete recruitment processes promptly and monitor staffing requirements regularly to ensure uninterrupted healthcare delivery – Decision: Recruitment of all vacant posts to be expedited with a defined timeline and ongoing monitoring [Paras 4.3, 10.2].

Suo Motu Cognizance – Media Report – Judicial Intervention in Public Interest – The court initiated the petition based on a media report highlighting healthcare deficiencies, including shortages in staff and infrastructure – Held: Judicial intervention necessary to ensure the state meets its constitutional duty to safeguard public health – Decision: Petition disposed of with directions to form monitoring committees for sustained implementation of healthcare measures [Paras 1, 2, 10(i)-(vi)].

Healthcare Strategy – Formation of Committees – Monitoring and Coordination – Directed the formation of committees at the state and district levels to oversee the implementation of health initiatives, monitor staffing levels, and propose infrastructural upgrades every six months – Decision: State-level and district-level committees to be formed, with detailed action plans and regular reviews [Paras 10(i)-(iv)].

Budget Allocation – Purpose-Driven Expenditure – Emphasized the need for adequate budgeting and effective utilization of funds for healthcare – Held: Budget allocations must be focused on addressing healthcare infrastructure gaps and operational needs – Decision: Respondents to ensure proper financial planning and efficient spending under healthcare schemes [Paras 5, 10.7].

Judicial Oversight – Compliance Monitoring – Required the State to file periodic affidavits detailing recruitment progress, infrastructural developments, and strategy implementation – Held: Continuous monitoring essential to ensure effective compliance – Decision: Affidavits to be filed every six months, with updates to be placed before the court [Paras 10.5-10.6].