Election Law - Interference by Courts in Election Matters – The petitioner filed for mandamus to direct cancellation of nomination paper of Respondent No.5 for the post of Panch, alleging fraudulent voter registration – Held, once election process starts, courts should not interfere as per Article 243-O of the Constitution and Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act – Petition dismissed, but petitioner can seek alternative remedy post-election declaration. [Paras 1-17]

Eligibility and Nomination Process – Analysis – Court reviews Sections 162, 163, 167, 171, 173, and 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, noting the comprehensive legal framework for voter list preparation and candidate eligibility – False declarations in voter lists are punishable – Nomination challenges should be addressed through election petitions post-election process. [Paras 6-12]

Decision – Non-interference in Ongoing Election Process – Reiterated by Supreme Court precedents, the judiciary’s non-interference during election processes ensures smooth electoral operations – Election disputes must be raised through election petitions as provided under the relevant statutes. [Paras 13-16]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 17A - Mandatory Prior Approval for Inquiry or Investigation against Public Servants - Protecting Public Servants from Vexatious Prosecution: The court emphasizes the significance of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval from the competent authority for any inquiry or investigation into offenses alleged to have been committed by public servants under the Act. This provision aims to shield public servants from malicious and baseless prosecution while ensuring accountability for genuine cases of corruption. (Para 10)

Private Complaints against Public Servants - Compliance with Section 17A - Protecting Against Frivolous Complaints: The court addresses the misuse of private complaints filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against public servants for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To prevent the circumvention of Section 17A's protective filter, the court lays down conditions for such complaints to be entertained. These conditions include mentioning attempts to register the complaint with the Karnataka Lokayukta and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority before referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Para 15)

Ensuring Compliance with Protective Measures - Scrutiny by the Courts: The court directs the learned Sessions Judges and concerned courts to scrutinize private complaints against public servants to ensure compliance with the specified conditions. This measure aims to uphold the integrity of the law, safeguard innocent public servants, and deter frivolous and vexatious complaints. (Para 16)

Quashing Proceedings for Non-Compliance: The court warns that failure to comply with the prescribed conditions will result in the quashing of proceedings against the accused. It reaffirms the need to protect public servants from unfounded allegations while allowing legitimate cases of corruption to be investigated thoroughly. (Para 17)

Criminal Procedure - Bail - Application for regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC - Allegations of compromising national security and sharing secret information with co-accused - Petitioner falsely implicated - Weak evidentiary value of disclosure statement - No recovery of narcotics from petitioner - Trial in progress - Serious and specific allegations against petitioner - Bail denied. (Para 5)

National Security - Compromise of national security - Allegations of sharing critical information with co-accused - Information forwarded to Pakistan for financial gain - Prima facie grave allegations - Denial of regular bail. (Para 5)

Promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the U.P. Public Works Department under the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department "Group-B" Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 - Controversy regarding promotion of Junior Engineers (Technical) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the 50% promotion quota as per the Rules, 2004 - Eligibility and procedure for promotion as per the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department "Group-B" Civil Engineering Service Rules, 2004 - Cadre of Junior Engineer (Technical) consisting of directly recruited Junior Engineers (Technical)/Computers and promoted Junior Engineers (Technical) who were initially appointed as Draftsmen - Amendment in the promotion quota from 20% to 50% in the year 1992 - Petitioners challenging the inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). (Para 1)

Interpretation of Rules, 1968, Rules, 1984, and Rules, 2004 - The interplay between the Rules governing the promotion from Draftsman to Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - The effect of the Rules, 1984 on the promotion opportunities for Draftsmen - Continuation of Rules, 1968 despite the enactment of Rules, 1984 - Unity of cadre between directly recruited Junior Engineers (Technical)/Computers and promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) - Eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on seniority and years of substantive service as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer. (Para 2)

Prerogative of the Engineer-in-Chief to determine the source/feeder post for promotion - Engineer-in-Chief's authority to decide the eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - Eligibility conditions under Rules, 1968 and Rules, 2004 - Inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion as per the direction of the Engineer-in-Chief. (Para 3)

Court's role in prescribing qualification and eligibility for promotion - Court's inability to amend statutory Rules and determine qualifications for promotion - Mandate of Rule 5(2) of Rules, 2004 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on years of substantive service as Junior Engineer (Technical)/Computer - Compliance with statutory rules in the promotion process. (Para 4)

Challenge to promotion after a lapse of time - Petitioners' delay in challenging the promotion of the opposite parties - Inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the seniority list and subsequent promotions - Belated challenge to the promotion not maintainable. (Para 5)

Legality of requisition for promotion - Compliance with the Court's direction in previous judgment - Legality of requisition sent to the Public Service Commission for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) - No illegality found in the impugned requisition dated 28.5.2022. (Para 6)

Dismissal of writ petitions and allowance of one writ petition - Dismissal of writ petitions challenging the inclusion of promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) in the eligibility list for promotion - Allowance of the writ petition filed by promotee Junior Engineers (Technical) for quashing an order and considering their case for promotion based on seniority. (Para 7)

Regular Bail – Pendency of Trial – Overstaying in India after Expiry of Passport and Visa – Allegations of violation of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Passports Act, 1967 – Petitioners, residents of Afghanistan, arrested for residing in India without valid passports and visas – Trial progressing at a slow pace – Only two prosecution witnesses examined till date – Further detention not serving any useful purpose – Petitioners released on regular bail – No expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 63 and 65 - Secondary evidence - Original will sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence - Existence and execution of original will not established - Mere assertion of possession by one defendant not sufficient - Secondary evidence cannot be admitted without establishing existence and loss of original document - Order allowing secondary evidence set aside. (Para Number: 7, 9, 11)

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of plaint - Application filed by defendant-petitioners seeking rejection of plaint - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiffs alleging possession and seeking injunction against dispossession - Defendant-petitioners claiming possession and contending suit not maintainable - Reliance on unregistered agreement to sell - Availability of alternative remedy - Impugned order dismissing application - Challenge thereto - Whether grounds exist for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Held, only averments of plaint to be considered - Plaintiffs specifically averring possession and seeking injunction - Defendant-petitioners' argument on possession not to be considered at this stage - Alternative remedy and reliance on unregistered agreement matters of evidence - No grounds made out for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision petition devoid of merits - Revision petition dismissed. (Para No. 5-6)

Criminal Writ Petition – Quashment of interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 – Violation of right to privacy – Compliance with Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution – Lack of sufficient reasoning and procedural safeguards. (Para 1)

Provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – Requirement for occurrences of public emergency or interest of public safety – Impugned orders lacked disclosure of material justifying public safety – Failure to record reasons in writing for interception. (Para 4)

Precedents – Illegal tapping of phone conversations violates right to privacy – Upheld by a 9 Judges Constitution Bench – Importance of procedural fairness and protection of privacy rights reaffirmed in previous cases. (Para 9)

Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 2007 – Mandate for issuance of interception orders by competent authorities – Orders must contain reasons – Requirement to consider other means of acquiring information – Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards. (Para 16)

Non-compliance with statutory provisions – Impugned orders passed by an incompetent authority – Failure to send orders to the Review Committee – Impugned orders suffered from manifest arbitrariness. (Para 17)

Quashing of all three interception orders – Direction to destroy intercepted messages and their copies – Prohibition of use of intercepted messages in pending criminal proceedings. (Para 19)

Petitioner allowed to seek further legal remedies for other reliefs sought in the writ petition – No costs imposed on either party. (Para 20)

Offenses relating to the security of women and POCSO Act - Duty of criminal courts to ensure witness protection - Rebuttal of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act through cross-examination - Right to cross-examine as an indelible right and essential for a fair trial. (Para 11)

Delay in filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Seriousness of offenses and harsh punishments under the POCSO Act - Importance of right to cross-examine in such cases - Delay not a sufficient ground to deny the opportunity for cross-examination. (Para 12)

Granting limited opportunity for cross-examination - Petitioner afforded a single date for cross-examining PW1 - Cross-examination to be conducted and completed on August 7, 2023 - No further opportunities to be provided. (Para 15)

Conditions and consequences - Precondition of payment to the witness - Payment of Rs. 10,000/- to be made by the petitioner within one week - Violation of conditions leading to the automatic vacation of the granted opportunity. (Para 17)

Disposal of the petition - Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the trial court's order dismissed - Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para 19)