Transplantation of Human Organs – Mandamus issued – Compliance with Authorisation Committee Procedures and Safeguarding Donors' Rights.

Transplantation of Human Organs – Writ petitions filed seeking mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations for kidney transplantation approval – Petitioners facing renal failure, with donors not being near relatives – Respondents hesitating to forward applications to Authorisation Committee due to fear of backlash in case of complications – Held, petitioners allowed to submit applications directly to Authorisation Committee, bypassing the need for hospital mediation – Authorisation Committee instructed to scrutinize applications and provide a decision within four weeks – Established that while commercial dealings in human organs are prohibited, altruistic donations should not be hindered by undue suspicion – Emphasis on the need for State Government to issue clear guidelines on application submission and donor protection – Judicial directions to ensure health and welfare provisions for donors post-transplantation, including medical insurance and financial support [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Evaluation – Court acknowledges the fears of medical professionals in forwarding transplant applications due to potential repercussions – Emphasizes the need for clear and structured guidelines from the State Government to streamline the application process – Recognizes the statutory duty of the Authorisation Committee to ensure no commercial transaction exists between donor and recipient and to verify the altruistic intent of donors – Highlights that burden of proof should not be disproportionately placed on applicants, and absence of commercial evidence should lead to approval of transplantation [Paras 6-8, 12-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions disposed of – Held – Petitioners permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee – Authorisation Committee mandated to process and decide on applications within a stipulated timeframe – Directions provided for ensuring donor welfare post-transplantation, including insurance and financial support measures – Emphasized the necessity of altruism in organ donation and the responsibility of Authorisation Committees to facilitate genuine donations without undue hurdles [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law - Bail Application under MCOCA - Bail Rejected – Application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of MCOCA – FIR alleges involvement in organized crime syndicate led by Vikas Gulia @ Vikas Langarpuria – Applicant accused of multiple serious crimes including murder, extortion, and robbery – Court observes applicant’s key role in syndicate and prior criminal record – Held: Applicant poses flight risk, likelihood of committing further crimes, and prima facie case under MCOCA made out – Bail application dismissed – Trial Court directed to expedite trial and conclude within six months. [Paras 52-86]

Role of Accused in Organized Crime – Analysis – Court finds substantial evidence linking applicant to organized crime syndicate – Applicant’s involvement in serious offences substantiated by multiple FIRs and investigation reports – Previous conduct and risk of absconding considered. [Paras 64-66, 55]

Legal Standards for Bail under MCOCA – Held – Provisions of Section 21(4) of MCOCA require stringent scrutiny – Bail cannot be granted unless court is satisfied on twin grounds of no guilt and no likelihood of re-offending – Applicant fails to meet these criteria – Court balances societal interests against individual rights. [Paras 52-56]

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court finds no merit in the application for bail – Directs Trial Court to expedite trial and conclude within six months – Observations limited to bail application and not on merits of the case. [Paras 86-89]

Bail Application – Grounds of Parity – Petitioner Jagdish @ Jamabaram seeks bail citing the bail granted to co-accused Karna Ram – Petitioner in judicial custody since 21.01.2021 – Trial likely to be prolonged – High Court finds petitioner's case not distinguishable from co-accused, extends bail on grounds of parity and prolonged incarceration [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court Guidelines – Refers to Supreme Court's stance on prolonged incarceration and right to speedy trial – Notes that delay in trial can justify bail despite restrictions under NDPS Act – Applies principle of conditional liberty overriding statutory embargo when trial is unreasonably delayed [Paras 3-4].

Case Analysis – Material Contradictions – Counsel cites material contradictions in Seizure Officer's testimony, impacting the prosecution’s case – High Court notes that trial is still ongoing with many witnesses yet to be examined – Bail granted based on prolonged custody and judicial precedents [Paras 2-5].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Jagdish @ Jamabaram to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each – Bail conditions include appearance at trial and compliance with court directives until trial completion [Paras 6].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charges – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash charge sheet and cognizance order – Allegations of dacoity found baseless during investigation – No evidence of caste-based derogation or public humiliation – Offences under IPC and SC/ST Act not made out against applicants – Personal dispute misrepresented as caste-based crime – Charge sheet and proceedings quashed [Paras 1-42].

SC/ST Act – Applicability – Insufficient evidence to invoke Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) – No specific derogatory remarks or actions targeting complainant’s caste – Personal dispute between parties – Supreme Court precedents emphasized necessity of public view and caste-based insult for SC/ST Act applicability [Paras 13-22, 35-39].

Judicial Cognizance – Application of Mind – Magistrate required to apply judicial mind before taking cognizance – Mere filling of blanks on proforma not sufficient – Detailed reasons for cognizance necessary – Cognizance order found mechanical and unsustainable [Paras 23-32].

Decision – Application Allowed – Charge sheet, cognizance order, and proceedings quashed – Case emphasized need for proper judicial scrutiny before cognizance in criminal matters [Para 41].

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notification – Notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for urgent acquisition quashed by Single Judge – Appeal by landholders challenging land acquisition for university expansion – High Court upholds quashing of urgency clause but modifies procedural directions [Paras 1-16].

Urgency Clause – Invocation Invalid – Original notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 issued without urgency – Fresh notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invoking urgency after significant delay found unjustified – High Court emphasizes legal impermissibility of simultaneous applicability of urgency provisions from both Acts [Paras 8, 10].

Procedural Lapse – Consideration of Objections – Single Judge’s order remanded matter for fresh consideration of objections under Section 5A – High Court upholds this approach, allowing appellants to submit fresh objections – Directions for compliance with Section 5A reiterated to ensure fair process [Paras 11, 16].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Apex Court – High Court refers to Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja regarding invalidity of urgency clause invocation – Finds factual distinctions and reiterates need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in land acquisition [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Impugned order by Single Judge upheld with modifications – Parties permitted to submit fresh objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Proceedings to be undertaken afresh by authorities strictly in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16, 16.1].
 

Criminal Procedure – DNA Test Order – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court's order for DNA testing to ascertain paternity in a maintenance claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Applicant argued against the legality of forced DNA testing without consent – Court upheld the order emphasizing that DNA testing is necessary to establish truth in paternity disputes impacting maintenance claims – Reference made to Section 53 Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws supporting the use of DNA tests [Paras 1-24].

Paternity Dispute – Maintenance Claim – Applicant contested paternity and responsibility for maintenance of children – Opposite party provided evidence including birth certificates and school records naming the applicant as the father – Court held that DNA testing is crucial for determining paternity and ensuring the welfare of the children, overriding objections to consent based on scientific advancements and legal precedents [Paras 11-21].

Decision: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of – Order for DNA test upheld – Applicant directed to either provide maintenance or undergo DNA testing to resolve paternity dispute [Para 23-24].

Recruitment Process – Estoppel – Appellant challenged the selection process for Medical Technologist post at SKIMS after participating in it – Contention that only 15 candidates applied for 20 advertised posts, hence, written test and interview were unnecessary – High Court upheld the selection process – Appellant estopped from challenging the process after participation [Paras 10-20].

Doctrine of Appropriation and Reprobation – Candidates who participate in selection without objection cannot later challenge it – Cited Supreme Court precedents affirming this principle – High Court rejected appellant’s claims based on settled legal position [Paras 12-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge – No legal infirmity found in the selection process or in the judgment under appeal.
 

Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Forgery Allegations - The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property sold by the first respondent to the deceased K.S.N. Manoharan. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, based on allegations of forgery and limitation. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial [Paras 12-14, 20].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection of Plaint Improper - The Court observed that limitation in specific performance suits is a mixed question of fact and law, especially when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by counsel are involved. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without framing issues and conducting a trial [Paras 25-28].

Doctrine of Laches – Litigant Should Not Suffer Due to Counsel’s Negligence - The appellants argued that the delay in filing the suit was caused by the negligence of their previous advocate, who failed to refile the suit. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocate, particularly when fraud by the advocate is alleged [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Case Remanded for Trial - The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for trial. The trial court was directed to frame issues and decide the case on merits within six months [Para 35].