Constitution of India – Article 243-D – Reservation in Local Bodies – Triple Test Compliance – OBC Reservation – Held: The State Election Commission complied with the 'Triple Test' mandated by the Supreme Court in Vikas Gawali – (1) A dedicated Commission was appointed; (2) Rigorous empirical inquiry was conducted (based on 2022 data); (3) Total reservation did not exceed 50% – The court cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of empirical data in writ jurisdiction. [Paras 28-32]

Constitution of India – Article 243-D – Reservation for Scheduled Castes – Proportion to Population – Rounding Off – Held: Reservation must be in proportion to the population – Where the SC population is negligible (0.9%), resulting in a fraction of a seat (0.23) which is less than 0.5, it is rounded off to zero – There is no mandate to reserve "at least one seat" irrespective of population proportion – Non-reservation of seats for SCs in South Goa Zilla Panchayat upheld. [Paras 14, 21-22]

Constitution of India – Article 243-O – Bar to Interference in Electoral Matters – Held: Once the election process has commenced via Notification, the bar under Article 243-O applies – Courts should not interfere to stall elections – Remedy lies in an Election Petition after the elections. [Paras 33-34]

Decision: Petitions dismissed. Rule discharged.

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Conduct of Plaintiff – Held: The plaintiff-appellants took divergent stands at different stages: initially claiming part of the land was acquired, then claiming the agreement was cancelled, and subsequently asserting the plot was not identifiable. Such contradictory stands negate the plea of readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The defendant-respondent was proven to be present at the Sub-Registrar’s office with necessary documents, whereas plaintiffs failed to perform their part. [Paras 8-9].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Scope of Interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing. In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary or any substantial question of law, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact. [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Pending applications disposed of. [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Rape Allegation – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by trial court under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 for allegedly committing rape on a 7-year-old girl – Trial court sentenced him to 14 years RI under IPC and 7 years RI under POCSO Act with fines under both provisions – On appeal, High Court finds that key prosecution witnesses including the victim (P.W.2), her mother (P.W.1), and father (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case – No corroborative evidence from medical or forensic reports – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 24, 25, 30, 32, 33]

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Victim and Parents – Victim (P.W.2) denied any incident of rape or assault by appellant – Stated she fell while playing – Medical evidence also did not confirm penetrative assault – Mother (P.W.1) admitted she was not present at the scene and that FIR (Ex. Ka-1) was not read to her – Father (P.W.3) also denied witnessing any incident and stated that report was filed on hearsay – Both parents contradicted FIR version – Held: No credible witness to support prosecution case – Statements inconsistent and unreliable [Paras 16, 17, 18, 30]

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical report (Ex. Ka-3) noted hymen torn but no bleeding or external injury – Supplementary report (Ex. Ka-4) stated no penetrative sexual assault – FSL report (Ex. Ka-10) on 7 items including accused’s towel and victim’s clothing showed no spermatozoa or incriminating material – Held: Medical and forensic evidence do not support charge of rape – No corroboration of prosecution’s version [Paras 8, 9, 11, 19, 21, 30]

Investigating Officer – Procedural Flaws – I.O. (P.W.7) claimed site plan was prepared at informant’s instance – However, informant herself (P.W.1) denied presence during incident – Accused allegedly brought to police station by informant and her husband, but both denied apprehending him – Held: Prosecution version of accused being caught red-handed is unsubstantiated and unsupported by reliable evidence [Paras 16, 18, 22, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 42 POCSO Act – Dual Sentencing Illegal – Trial court convicted and sentenced appellant under both Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act – High Court held that under Section 42 of POCSO Act, offender can only be sentenced under the law which provides for greater punishment – Reiterated that sentencing under both IPC and POCSO is impermissible – Relied on Krishnakant v. State of U.P. (2022) 10 ILRA 982 – Held: Trial court erred in awarding concurrent sentences under both statutes [Paras 26, 27, 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released from custody forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 33, 34, 35]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Section 3 – Reproductive Autonomy and Consent – Held: The right to make reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. The consent of the pregnant person is paramount in decisions regarding termination of pregnancy. Under Section 3(4)(b), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman. Even in cases of minors, where guardian consent is required, the opinion of the minor must be considered. The State or the Court cannot interfere with the personal choice of a pregnant person to continue the pregnancy. [Paras 6-9]

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) – Applicability in Absence of Consent – Held: The SOP laid down by the Division Bench (in WP No. 5184/2025), which mandates forwarding the victim to the District Court/Medical Board and subsequently to the High Court for pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, is not required to be carried out in cases where the prosecutrix/victim does not give consent for the same. No direction for medical termination can be issued against the victim's will. [Paras 3, 10]

Decision: PUD (Paper Under Disposal) disposed of. Copy of order sent to the concerned trial court. [Paras 11-12]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petition sought quashing of FIR alleging that the petitioner, as Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, extorted money and threatened vendors with adverse news coverage – Held: Allegations in FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences – Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a “mini-trial” at FIR stage – Investigation must proceed unhindered – Quashing power to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases [Paras 9–11, 13–18].

Media Ethics – Abuse of Position by Journalist – Extortion and Coercion – FIR alleged that petitioner misused company’s platform to solicit money through threats of defamatory broadcasts – Such acts, if proven, constitute gross abuse of media authority and harm to public trust – Allegations require full investigation and cannot be nullified as employer-employee dispute [Paras 7.1–7.2, 22–23].

Freedom of Press – Limits and Responsibility – Court reiterated that press freedom is integral to democracy but carries duty of fairness, accuracy, and integrity – “Freedom of Press is imperative for a functioning democracy; however, misuse of such freedom through coercion or blackmail cannot be tolerated” [Preface; Paras 7–9].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Applicability – Case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Allegations not absurd, improbable, or mala fide on their face – Investigation must determine truth of allegations [Paras 2.1–2.4, 23].

Judicial Review – Stage of Investigation – Precedents Cited – Reaffirmed principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 407; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35; Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 – High Court’s interference limited to cases where FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence [Paras 10–20].

Decision: FIR No. 257/2025 discloses cognizable offences – Investigation to continue uninhibited – Petition for quashing dismissed – Petitioner at liberty to approach Investigating Officer for fair-investigation concerns; IO to act as per law and issue notice under Section 35 BNSS if required [Paras 22–25].

Employees’ Compensation – Employer–Employee Relationship – Total Lack of Evidence – Commissioner relied solely on FIR/FIS without oral proof – Appellant specifically denied employment – Held: Existence of jurisdictional fact must be proved; matter remanded for fresh evidence; substantial question of law arises [Paras 7-10].

Employees’ Compensation – Jurisdictional Fact – Proof of Employment – Death of worker in quarry – Claimants produced only FIR/FIS and three other documents, no oral evidence – Commissioner accepted employer–employee relationship solely on basis of FIR/FIS – Held: Initial burden to prove relationship lies on claimants; lack of evidence on jurisdictional fact raises substantial question of law [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Evidence – FIR/FIS Not Substantive Proof – FIR/FIS marked without objection, but no witness examined to prove employment – Appellant denied relationship in written statement – Absence of oral evidence is fatal; mere marking of documents does not discharge burden – Commissioner’s reliance on FIR/FIS misplaced [Paras 4, 7].

Precedents – Distinction with Gangan v. Christin Raj – Division Bench decision relied upon by Commissioner held applicable only where adequate evidence is produced – Present case involves no such evidence; hence Commissioner’s reading incorrect [Para 7].

Substantial Question of Law – When Arises – Whether there is total lack of evidence regarding jurisdictional fact is a substantial question of law – Court follows earlier ruling in MFA(ECC) No. 18 of 2024 – Examination of total absence of evidence does not amount to re-appreciation of evidence [Paras 8-9].

Remand – Fresh Consideration Needed – As FIR/FIS and documents were marked without objection, claimants may have believed no further evidence required – Interest of justice and object of the Act require remand to give parties full opportunity to adduce evidence on employer–employee relationship [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Impugned award set aside – Matter remitted to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner – Parties to appear on 15.12.2025; evidence to be completed within four months; Commissioner to pass fresh order within six months – Deposited amount to remain intact till disposal [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Bail under UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie Case – Held: The proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates an embargo on granting bail if the Court, on perusal of the case diary or Section 173 CrPC report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. In this case, the recovery of explosive material (Potassium Nitrate, Chlorate, etc.) from the appellant, coupled with disclosure statements of co-accused regarding the supply of material for creating terror, established a prima facie case. [Paras 9-11, 15]

Criminal Law – Explosives and Conspiracy – Held: The appellant, running a firecracker business without a license, was found in possession of explosive substances. The FSL report confirmed the nature of the substance. The material was allegedly supplied to co-accused to cause explosions near the Golden Temple to hurt religious harmony and integrity of the country. The absence of a license leads to the conclusion that the material was collected for illegal purposes. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Law – Delay in Trial vs. Gravity of Offence – Held: While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail under Article 21, the gravity of the offence involving a conspiracy to cause bomb blasts in a public/religious place weighs heavily against the accused. The appellant is involved in multiple cases under the Explosives Act. Bail denied. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision: Appeals dismissed.

Service Law – Wrongful Pay Fixation – Recovery – Group-D staff performing Group-C duties granted higher pay scale since 2004 – Recovery directed after 10–14 years – Applying Syed Abdul Qadir and Rafiq Masih – Held: Recovery from Group C/D employees, long-delayed and without misrepresentation, is inequitable and arbitrary; impugned memo/order quashed; refunds directed [Paras 23-26].

Service Law – Excess Payment – No Misrepresentation – Petitioners appointed as Rent Collectors (Group-D) but made to discharge Group-C duties due to staff shortages – Municipality granted Group-C scale from 01.08.2004, increments also paid – Held: Excess payment was not a result of any misrepresentation or fraud by petitioners; higher scale was granted by competent authorities and enjoyed for over a decade [Paras 3-8, 13].

Recovery of Excess Salary – Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents – Court relied on Syed Abdul Qadir, Rafiq Masih, and Jogeswar Sahoo – Laid down exceptions where recovery is impermissible: (i) employees in Group C/D; (ii) payments continued over five years; (iii) employees made to work on higher posts; (iv) recovery causing hardship – Held: Present facts squarely covered by all three conditions—recovery impermissible [Paras 15-18, 23-24].

Equity & Hardship – Long-Delayed Recovery – Petitioners received higher scale for 10–14 years; recovery initiated only in 2013/2017 after decades – Such recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Particularly because many petitioners were near retirement or had retired; hardship outweighs employer’s right to recover [Paras 23-24].

Refund of Amounts Recovered – Court invoked parity principle – Employees who had already refunded excess amounts must be reimbursed, following Syed Abdul Qadir which mandated refund of amounts earlier recovered by mistake – Directed refund within three months [Para 25].

Administrative Action – Legal Validity – Memo dated 27.05.2013 of Director of Local Bodies and Order dated 01.11.2017 of Chairman, Tarakeswar Municipality directing recovery and re-fixation of pay held illegal and set aside – Orders inconsistent with binding Supreme Court law and principles of fairness [Para 26].

Decision – WPA allowed – Impugned memo and order quashed – No recovery to be made; any recovered amounts to be refunded; all connected applications disposed; interim orders vacated [Paras 26-30].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Co-owner’s Right to Evict Tenant – Ownership Dispute – Tenant’s Purchase of Co-owner’s Share – Tenant claimed ownership by virtue of sale deed dated 15.12.2016 executed by landlord’s sister (co-owner) after eviction petition was filed – Held: Sale pendente lite hit by doctrine of lis pendens – No merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) TPA unless entirety of lessor’s and lessee’s rights vest in one person – Purchase of one co-owner’s undivided share does not extinguish tenancy – Eviction maintainable by any co-owner without consent or NOC from others [Paras 19–23, 25–26].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Section 14(1)(e) – Bona Fide Requirement – Maintainability by One Co-owner – Landlord need not obtain prior consent or affidavit of other co-owners to file eviction – Petition by one co-owner valid unless another co-owner actively opposes – Mere impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by co-owner does not constitute objection [Paras 25–27].

Transfer of Property – Section 111(d) – Merger Doctrine – Effect of Partial Transfer – Tenant acquiring interest from one co-owner does not result in merger of lease and ownership – Ownership remains joint until partition by metes and bounds – Tenant continues to be bound by original tenancy [Paras 20–22].

Lis Pendens – Sale During Pendency of Eviction Proceedings – Sale deed executed by co-owner in favour of tenant during subsistence of eviction petition voidable and subject to outcome of pending proceedings – Transaction lacks bona fides where tenant aware of litigation and proceeds without disclosure to court [Paras 28–29].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Estoppel Against Denial of Title – Tenant, having admitted tenancy in written statement and deposition, estopped from disputing landlord’s title – ARC not competent to adjudicate ownership title disputes in eviction proceedings [Paras 24–25].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act – High Court’s interference confined to exceptional cases of jurisdictional or procedural error – Findings of ARC based on proper appreciation of law and evidence upheld – No ground for interference made out [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Revision dismissed – Eviction order dated 13.08.2024 upheld – Stay on execution vacated – Tenant directed to hand over possession of two shops (6’4” x 10’6” and 6’10” x 14’5”) at property No. 6165/1, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – Benefit of six months under Section 14(7) of DRC Act held to have lapsed [Paras 31–33].