Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40].

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19].

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39].

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].

Arbitration – Extension of Mandate – Petitioners sought extension of Arbitrator’s mandate due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and severe monsoon conditions – Claimant’s evidence complete, petitioners yet to present evidence – Reference to similar extension granted in connected matters – Court extended Arbitrator’s mandate by six months [Paras 1-4].

Mandate Extension under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Conditions for extending mandate detailed – Court emphasized statutory provision allows extension upon sufficient cause – Extension granted till January 4, 2025, with parties directed to appear before Arbitrator [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Mandate of Arbitrator extended by six months – Parties to appear before Arbitrator on July 12, 2024 – Court disposed of petition and pending miscellaneous applications accordingly [Para 4].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Appellant convicted for kidnapping a minor girl and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault multiple times – Trial court imposed life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and additional ten-year imprisonment under IPC Section 366(A) – High Court modified sentence based on discrepancies in evidence and procedural delays [Paras 1-17].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Discrepancies – Prosecution’s key witness, the victim, had inconsistencies in statements regarding the use of a weapon and the sequence of events – Court highlighted the importance of consistent testimonies and immediate filing of complaints to support the credibility of allegations [Paras 6-14].

Sentencing – Application of Amended POCSO Act – Trial court applied maximum sentence under amended Section 6 of POCSO Act – High Court reduced sentence to minimum ten years due to investigative lapses and the pre-amendment provisions being more favorable to the appellant [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC Section 366(A) and POCSO Act confirmed – Sentence under POCSO Act reduced to ten years – Sentence for IPC Section 366(A) remained unaffected [Para 17-18].

Defamation – Issuance of Summons – Petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Mandi, H.P., issuing summons to the petitioners in a defamation case filed by the complainant – The complaint alleged defamatory publications in newspapers with mala fide intention to defame the complainant – Trial court issued summons without properly considering the documents and evidence on record – Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. maintainable against such an order – The High Court quashed the complaint and the summoning order [Paras 1-27].

Maintainability of Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Issuance of summons not an interlocutory order – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be filed against such orders – High Court emphasized the importance of examining the material on record before issuing process [Paras 9-18].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Complaint and summoning order quashed – Publication based on true reproduction of a resolution brought on record by the complainant himself, hence not defamatory [Paras 19-27].

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].

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].