Education Law – Student Union Elections – Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations – Petitioners sought mandamus for annual conduct of Student Union elections within 6–8 weeks of commencement of academic session as per Lyngdoh Committee – Court examined scope, enforceability and present applicability of recommendations in light of academic exigencies and institutional autonomy [Paras 1–3, 14–21].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Locus Standi – Writ petitions filed by a handful of students without representative authorization – Held: Petitioners lacked locus standi to espouse cause of lakhs of students across State – Petitions not framed as PIL – Individual writs seeking representative relief not maintainable [Paras 43–44.1].

Writ Jurisdiction – Prematurity – Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies – Petitioners failed to approach Dean, Student Welfare or University Election Authorities prior to invoking writ jurisdiction – No representation, grievance or adverse decision on record – Held: Courts do not issue writs in vacuum or at pre-decisional stage – Petitions premature [Paras 43–44.4].

Fundamental Rights – Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(c) – Scope – Right to freedom of speech and association does not translate into an enforceable fundamental right to demand conduct of Student Union elections at a particular time – Participation in elections held to be statutory/administrative, not absolute fundamental right [Paras 23–25, 34–36].

Academic Autonomy vs Student Democracy – Doctrine of Balance – Student elections recognized as beneficial for democratic values and leadership – However, academic primacy, discipline and institutional harmony held paramount – Elections are ancillary to core academic mandate and must not disrupt educational ecosystem [Paras 41–42].

Lyngdoh Committee – Binding Nature – Court noted conflicting submissions on continued enforceability of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations post dismissal of University of Kerala appeal – Declined to issue mandamus enforcing elections for current academic year – Issue left to be addressed through institutional mechanisms [Paras 32–33, 52].

Prospective Directions – Judicial Guidelines – Despite dismissal of writs, Court issued extensive prospective directions in aid of good governance – Universities directed to evolve consultative and transparent mechanism for future conduct of Student Union elections – Directions issued under constitutional role of Court as sentinel on the qui vive [Paras 45–61].

Directions to Students – Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Students directed to first approach University authorities (DSW/Election Board) – Mandatory hearing to be afforded – Special meeting directed to be convened on 19.01.2026 for consultation with student representatives and affiliated colleges [Paras 47–49].

Directions to Universities and State – Accountability – Universities directed to maintain Election Boards, ensure transparency in use of election-related fees, and follow principles of natural justice – Decision on election framework to be taken within 15 days of consultative meeting [Paras 50–51].

Prospective Conduct of Elections – Court refrained from directing elections for academic year 2025–26 as session at fag end – Directed future election calendars to be issued ordinarily in March – Deviations to be supported by cogent reasons – Mode of elections to comply with RUSU Guidelines, 2017 [Paras 52–53].

Campus Discipline – Political Interference – Court cautioned against external political influence (ABVP, NSUI, SFI, etc.) – Student elections to remain student-centric – Age limits, expenditure caps and disclosure norms to be strictly enforced [Para 52(e)].

Use of University Infrastructure – General Elections – Court issued prospective directions to Election Commission of India and civil authorities to avoid requisitioning Universities as polling/counting centres where it disrupts academics – Academic calendars to be respected, especially under semester system [Paras 54–60].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable and premature – No mandamus issued for conduct of Student Union elections for academic year 2025–26 – Extensive prospective guidelines issued to students, Universities, State Government and Election Commission – Registrar (Judicial) directed to forward judgment to concerned authorities – No order as to costs [Paras 44–65].

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.

Partition – Joint Family Property – Second Appeal – Divergent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Trial Court decreed suit for partition holding that suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties and that alleged oral partition of 1972 and registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 were not binding on plaintiffs – First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that parties had already partitioned in 1972 and acted upon the same – High Court reappreciating evidence in light of substantial questions of law – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court erroneous and unsustainable – Judgment of Trial Court restored [Paras 1, 16, 31–32].

Partition – Proof of Prior Oral Partition – Unregistered Palupatti dated 03.11.1972 – Evidentiary Value – Defendants relied on unregistered document to contend severance of joint family – No cogent documentary evidence showing allotment of specific shares or mutation pursuant to 1972 partition – Revenue records and RTCs continued to reflect joint names of parties – Held: Mere plea of oral partition without reliable corroboration insufficient to prove earlier partition [Paras 4, 7, 24, 30].

Registered Partition Deed – Allegation of Fraud and Incapacity – Partition deed dated 21.12.2004 – Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was illiterate, aged, suffering from burn injuries and was taken to Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw – Evidence of DWs admitted poor health and burn injuries of executant – No recital in registered deed regarding prior partition of 1972 – Held: Circumstances surrounding execution raise serious doubt about free and conscious consent – Trial Court rightly held partition deed not binding on plaintiffs [Paras 19–20, 25, 29–30].

Joint Re-grant of Inam Lands – Effect – Properties re-granted jointly in favour of plaintiffs’ father and defendant under Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act – Mutation entries and RTCs showed joint cultivation and possession – Subsequent grant in sole name of defendant did not negate earlier joint cultivation evidenced by records – Held: Suit properties retained joint family character and were liable for partition [Paras 18, 23–24, 31].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Registered documents and revenue records showing joint names prevailed over interested oral testimony of defence witnesses – DWs found to be interested and inconsistent – Admissions by defendants regarding joint execution of sale deeds and joint dealings – Held: Trial Court correctly appreciated evidence; First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law [Paras 25–30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in reversing Trial Court decree without material proof of earlier partition – High Court held that reversal was based on inadmissible and insufficient evidence – Interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 16, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019 restored.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Compounding of Offence – Section 41 FCRA – Effect of Compounding – The petitioner received foreign contribution without prior permission, which was a technical contravention of the FCRA – The offence was subsequently compounded by the Ministry of Home Affairs upon payment of a compounding fee – Once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the slate is wiped clean, and the contravention cannot be cited as an adverse ground for rejecting a registration application – To disqualify an applicant on this ground after compounding would be disproportionate and a failure to consider relevant material – The authority failed to clarify that compounding would only shield from prosecution but lead to disqualification under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Religious Organization – Section 11(1) FCRA – Interpretation of "definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme" – The respondent rejected the application stating the petitioner-organization "appears to be religious" based on its engagement in imparting Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta – Section 11(1) allows religious organizations to receive foreign contributions if registered – The authority must form a "definite" conclusion based on materials, not a tentative one – Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta are not confined to a specific religion but are part of Bharatiya civilization and moral science, as held in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) and 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) regarding Yoga – The petitioner is also registered as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a relevant material – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Article 226 Constitution of India – Section 31(2) FCRA – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Despite the availability of an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA to the High Court, a writ petition is maintainable if there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or the impugned order suffers from disproportionality – The Supreme Court in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129 (Rikhab Chand Jain v. UOI) held that while refusal to entertain a writ petition is the rule when the alternative forum is the High Court itself, it can be an exception in cases of fundamental breach of natural justice or disproportionality – The impugned order in this case suffers from both, making the writ petition maintainable [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration within three months, taking into account all relevant materials and observations made in this order, after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged transfer of FC funds [Paras 19, 20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].