Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Fetal Abnormality – Petitioner's application for medical termination of pregnancy due to substantial fetal abnormalities denied by Lok Nayak Hospital's Medical Board – Subsequent examination by AIIMS Medical Board diagnosed fetus with Joubert Syndrome, a multisystem disorder with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes – High Court accepted AIIMS Medical Board's recommendation for termination of pregnancy – Emphasized on importance of comprehensive and prompt medical opinions in such cases [Paras 1-29].

Gestational Age – Risk Assessment – Petitioner’s pregnancy beyond 24 weeks – AIIMS Medical Board found pregnancy to be at 30 weeks and 4 days – Despite advanced gestational age, court permitted termination considering significant risk of severe neurological and multisystem impairments in child [Paras 6-7, 18-20].

Right to Personal Liberty – Reproductive Choices – Supreme Court’s principles in Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Administration reiterated – Emphasized pregnant woman's right to make reproductive choices under Article 21 of the Constitution, including decision to terminate pregnancy in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at medical facility of her choice – Lok Nayak Hospital Medical Board criticized for inadequate assessment – AIIMS Medical Board commended for prompt and thorough evaluation – Medical professionals advised to provide comprehensive opinions in future cases – Immunity granted to doctors involved in the case [Paras 21-29].

Preventive Detention – Delay in Detention Order – Petitioner contends delay between last prejudicial activity and detention order – Court holds no culpable delay, endorses detaining authority’s prompt action upon genuine apprehension of detenu’s release on bail – Detention order upheld [Paras 1-2].

Period of Detention – Authority to Fix – District Magistrate not competent to stipulate detention period – Power solely vested with Government post-Advisory Board report – KAAPA scheme and Article 22(4) prohibit fixing detention period in initial order – Stipulation by District Magistrate deemed prejudicial to detenu [Paras 3-24].

Instructions by Government – Home Department’s instructions on detention period delegation invalid – Government cannot delegate exclusive power under Section 10(4) KAAPA to District Magistrates – Instructions led to erroneous detention order [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Detention order set aside due to illegal stipulation of detention period by District Magistrate – Petitioner’s son to be released forthwith if not required in other proceedings [Para 25].

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appeal Against Conviction – Appellant, a Junior Clerk in the District Court, convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting Rs. 10,000 as a bribe to influence a judicial decision – Prosecution evidence included direct and circumstantial evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe – Conviction challenged on grounds of improper framing of charge and lack of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act [Paras 1-12, 30-31, 52-54].

Prosecution Case – Details of Bribe Transaction – Complainant facing trial under Section 304 of the IPC alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 35,000, later reduced to Rs. 10,000, for influencing the presiding officer – Anti Corruption Bureau laid a trap and caught the appellant accepting the bribe – Panch witnesses and trap officer corroborated the complainant’s testimony – Phenolphthalein test confirmed the acceptance of tainted money [Paras 2-6, 13-19, 28-29].

Procedure – Framing of Charge – Importance of Correct Charge – Trial conducted under Section 8 of the Act, which pertains to bribe-givers, not bribe-takers – Proper sections applicable were Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) – Charge framed did not reflect the correct offence leading to procedural irregularity – Section 228 Cr.P.C. requires charges to be clear, unambiguous, and correctly framed to inform the accused of precise accusations [Paras 36-38, 41-46].

Sanction for Prosecution – Necessity and Implications – Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates prior sanction for prosecution of public servants – Trial court failed to obtain sanction before taking cognizance under applicable sections – Absence of sanction renders trial null and void – Liberty granted to prosecution to obtain fresh sanction and proceed with retrial [Paras 49-54, 56-61].

Retrial – Conditions and Legal Precedents – High Court emphasized the need for retrial in corruption cases involving public servants to maintain public trust – Retrial permissible upon obtaining proper sanction as per precedents – Second trial not barred under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. as initial trial was invalid due to lack of sanction [Paras 47-48, 55-61].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed – Prosecution granted liberty to obtain fresh sanction for retrial – High Court underscores necessity for proper procedure and sanction in corruption cases to uphold public trust and legal integrity [Paras 61-61].

Arbitration and Conciliation – Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Appellant challenged the dismissal of their petition to set aside an arbitral award favoring the claimant for damages due to damaged consignments – Court upheld the arbitral award, stating the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, provided equal opportunity, and passed a well-reasoned award – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or error on the face of the record [Paras 1-24].

Arbitral Procedure – Jurisdiction and Validity – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction upheld based on the arbitration clause in the agreement – Arbitrator followed due process, issuing notices and considering submissions from both parties – Settlement limited to specific claims did not affect unresolved disputes under arbitration [Paras 12-14].

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – Court reiterated the limited grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34 – Emphasized that patent illegality must go to the root of the matter – Reappraisal of evidence by the court not permissible – No evidence of arbitrator’s misconduct or procedural unfairness found [Paras 16-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs awarded – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed [Para 24].

Commercial Law – Additional Documents in Commercial Suit – Trial court allowed respondent’s application to bring additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Petitioner challenged on grounds of procedural error and irrelevance of documents – High Court found procedural lapses in trial court’s order, noting lack of urgency and sufficient time to file documents earlier – Application of respondent deemed vague for not specifying all additional documents sought to be filed – Order set aside, documents directed to be taken off the record [Paras 1-37].

Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court emphasized limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct errors of jurisdiction or law causing manifest injustice – Interference warranted where trial court’s order was against procedural requirements and principles of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 19-21, 34-35].

Procedural Compliance – Non-disclosure of Documents – Respondent’s failure to file additional documents within stipulated time and lack of convincing reason for delay – Statements in application and earlier pleadings found inconsistent – Emphasized need for strict compliance with procedural rules in commercial suits to ensure expeditious disposal [Paras 23-35].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial court’s order allowing additional documents set aside – Documents directed to be taken off the record – Liberty granted to respondent to use specific letter during evidence [Paras 35-37].

Patent Law – Inventive Step and Non-Patentability – Appeal against the rejection of patent application No.5360/CHENP/2010 for an orally, rapidly disintegrating tablet – Grounds of rejection included lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3€ of the Patents Act, 1970 – High Court finds that prior arts D1, D3, and D5 do not teach away from the claimed invention and highlights the European Patent granted to the appellant considering the same prior arts – Patent for the manufacturing process already granted in a co-pending application supports the inventive step – Respondent’s conclusions on lack of inventive step found erroneous [Paras 1-13].

Estoppel in Patent Examination – Once the process patent for the method of manufacturing the tablet is granted, the respondent is estopped from rejecting the product patent for lack of inventive step – The product patent rejection based on the process being obvious to a person skilled in the art deemed incorrect – Patent law distinguishes between product and process patents, with a granted process patent not negating the inventive step in the product itself [Paras 10-12].

Remand for Reconsideration – The Court remands the issue of non-patentability under Section 3€ back to the respondent for fresh consideration – The Court mandates that a different Patent Controller should conduct the re-evaluation and include a hearing for the appellant – Fresh consideration to be completed within three months [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Rejection of patent application on grounds of lack of inventive step set aside – Issue of non-patentability under Section 3€ remitted for fresh consideration – Appellant granted opportunity for a hearing during reconsideration process [Para 15].

Promotion and Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner’s Promotion and Suspension – The petitioner, originally a Forest Ranger, was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) on an ad hoc basis under a departmental notification dated 26.09.2018 – He was assigned as In-Charge of Kuldiha Wildlife Range, Balasore Wildlife Division – Subsequently, a Memorandum of Charge dated 17.10.2019 was issued against him alleging negligence in duty, suppression of facts, and disobedience to superiors – Following this, the petitioner was suspended on 20.02.2020 under Rule 12 of the OCS (CCA) Rules due to the severity of the allegations.

Misconduct and Integrity Issues – Charges and Criminal Case – While under suspension, the petitioner received another Memorandum dated 19.11.2020 alleging failure to maintain integrity and duty dereliction – A criminal case (Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.13 of 2020) under the Prevention of Corruption Act was also initiated – The Review Committee, considering the ongoing departmental proceedings, found the petitioner’s continued service against public interest due to integrity concerns, ultimately recommending premature retirement as per Rule 71 of the OSC.

Rule 71(a) OSC and Review Committee’s Recommendation – The Review Committee, as per the OSC Guidelines, concluded that the petitioner’s actions amounted to conduct unbecoming of a government servant, deeming his retirement necessary to preserve public confidence and service efficiency – The committee cited the petitioner’s history of allegations, including his failure to prevent wildlife poaching in his jurisdiction, as justification for retirement on grounds of public interest.

Scope of Judicial Review – Compulsory Retirement Decisions – Judicial Deference Required - The courts exercising judicial review must not substitute their judgment for that of the Review Committee and should only intervene if the committee's decision is found to be arbitrary or irrational. This was affirmed in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v. State of J&K, which emphasized the difficulty of judicial review in administrative decisions concerning service evaluations. The discretion exercised by the committee is presumed to be based on a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors relevant to public interest, and only egregious instances warrant intervention [Paras 10-10.1].

Public Interest and Integrity Assessment – Rule 71 of the OSC – Premature Retirement Justified - Rule 71 of the OSC permits the premature retirement of an employee after 30 years of service or upon reaching the age of 50, emphasizing the public interest rather than punitive measures. Compulsory retirement under this rule does not equate to a penalty, allowing the authority to act in public interest without the stigma typically associated with dismissal or major penalties. Thus, the Review Committee's discretion in recommending premature retirement based on service record evaluation is upheld as lawful and justified [Paras 11-11.2].

Disciplinary Proceedings and Judicial Consideration – The interaction of disciplinary proceedings and premature retirement - The court found that the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings does not preclude the invocation of Rule 71 for retirement if it serves public interest. The petitioner’s assertions regarding the need for completion of departmental inquiries before invoking retirement were dismissed as the committee's decision was deemed within their evaluative jurisdiction, especially when integrity was questioned [Paras 12.1-12.9].

Evaluation of Integrity – Detriment to Public Service - The Review Committee concluded that the petitioner’s continued service posed a potential detriment to public interest, citing concerns of integrity based on allegations of misconduct and failure in duty. As articulated in various precedents, integrity forms a fundamental criterion in assessing a public servant's suitability for continued service, thus the decision to retire the petitioner was consistent with established principles of public service conduct and the OSC [Paras 12.20-12.23].

Conclusion – Review Committee's Decision Upheld - The court upheld the Review Committee’s recommendation for the petitioner’s premature retirement under Rule 71 of the OSC, dismissing the petition on grounds of procedural correctness and substantive legality. The judgment reiterated that the lack of specific adverse remarks does not invalidate the committee’s assessment of integrity, nor does it imply procedural impropriety in recommending retirement, as public interest remains the paramount consideration [Paras 18-21].
 

Administrative Orders and Statutory Provisions – Supremacy of Law – The petitioner challenged the validity of various administrative memoranda that penalized her for participating in a strike. The Court held that statutory provisions and regulations must prevail over executive orders. Any administrative order conflicting with statutory law and regulations is ultra vires and must be set aside [Paras 22-26, 37-38].

Natural Justice – Right to be Heard – The petitioner was penalized without being given an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions must follow the due process prescribed by relevant statutes and regulations, ensuring fair treatment [Paras 34, 38].

Equality Before Law – Discrimination – The petitioner argued that she was unfairly discriminated against compared to other employees who were granted special casual leave for attending work during the strike. The Court found this discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, underscoring the need for equal treatment [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The impugned memoranda and the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner were set aside. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits accrued during her absence and comply with statutory regulations [Paras 43].
 

Partition Suit – Interpretation of Will – Inconsistency in Clauses – Plaintiffs sought partition of the property based on a Will and Codicil. The Will’s Clauses 6 and 10 had inconsistencies regarding the distribution of the property. The Court held that as per Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, the later clauses (7 and 10) in the Will would prevail over the earlier clause (6). The plaintiffs were not entitled to an equal 1/3^rd share as claimed but were entitled to a share proportional to the superstructure allotted to them [Paras 24-28].

Codicil – Clarification of Will – The Codicil executed by the testatrix clarified typographical errors in the Will, particularly regarding the allocation of portions of the property to the heirs. The Court held that the testatrix’s intention was clearly expressed in the Codicil, which further supported the interpretation of the later clauses of the Will [Paras 23, 27].

Preliminary Decree – Insufficient Information – The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient details about the constructed areas to ascertain their exact share in the land. Hence, a preliminary decree could not be granted based on the available materials. The plaintiffs were given liberty to file a fresh suit with detailed particulars [Paras 29-30].

Limitation – Right to Seek Partition – The Court held that the right to seek partition is continuous and thus, the suit was not barred by limitation [Para 31].

Decision: Suit dismissed with liberty to plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit for partition with detailed particulars of the constructed areas. No order as to costs [Para 32].