Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Disqualification of Member of Parliament – Effect of Stay of Conviction – Petitioner sought Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 1 (Rahul Gandhi) on the ground of disqualification under Article 102 r/w Section 8(3) of the RP Act due to conviction in a defamation case – Held: Once the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court (Supreme Court in this case), the disqualification arising out of such conviction ceases to operate from the date of the stay order. The conviction becomes non-operative, and the bar under Section 8(3) does not apply during the pendency of the appeal. – Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 16-17]

Election Law – Disqualification upon Conviction – Distinction between Stay of Sentence and Stay of Conviction – Held: There is a fundamental distinction between the stay of execution of sentence and the stay of conviction. Mere stay of sentence/bail does not wipe out the disqualification. However, when the conviction itself is stayed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 389 CrPC or inherent powers, the disqualification is kept in abeyance and the individual is not debarred from holding public office. [Para 13]

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Corruption/Misappropriation of Public Funds – MGNREGA Scheme – Petitioners (vendors) accused of conspiring with officials to divert funds meant for chicken coops, wells, and cattle sheds by falsifying records – Total misappropriation approx. Rs. 2 Crores – Held: In serious offences involving corruption and misappropriation of public funds, anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover misappropriated amounts. Granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Re-transfer of Misappropriated Money – Effect on Bail – One accused argued he re-transferred money to the prime accused, showing bonafides – Held: Re-transferring money to the prime accused indicates continuation of the conspiracy and sharing of proceeds, rather than innocence. It is an aggravating factor. [Para 31]

Decision: Bail applications dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender. [Para 35]

Criminal Law – Rape – Age of Victim Not Proven – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act – Birth certificate (Exhibit P8) obtained on court order shortly before complaint, with no production of the court order or supporting documents under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – No school admission register or SSLC marks card produced – Medical officer failed to conduct ossification test or comply with Section 164A CrPC – Parents of victim admitted ignorance of her birth date – Held: Age determination failed statutory standards under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Delay in Filing Complaint – Alleged repeated intercourse on promise of marriage – Complaint lodged after two-year delay – Medical report confirmed absence of signs of recent assault – Victim's own statement indicated consensual relationship – Held: No evidence of force or coercion – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not satisfied – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC not sustainable [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial – Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to follow procedures for determining age or gathering admissible evidence – No application filed under Section 173(8) CrPC for additional documents post-charge sheet – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court’s conviction based on inadequate appreciation of evidence set aside [Paras 16–19, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act – Reinstatement vs. Lump-sum Compensation – Daily Wager in Irrigation Department – Labour Court granted reinstatement but denied full relief – Employee and State both challenged award – Held: Irrigation Department is an “industry” under Section 2(j) of the ID Act as settled by Supreme Court and Full Bench – State barred from repeatedly raising contrary plea [Paras 9–11].

Evidence – Completion of 240 Days – Burden of Proof – Workman entered witness box and deposed continuous service – Employer failed to produce muster rolls despite directions – Adverse inference rightly drawn against employer – Non-production of best evidence fatal to employer’s case [Paras 12–15].

Section 25B, 25F, 25G & 25H ID Act – Continuous Service – Retrenchment – Violation Established – Once breach of Sections 25G and 25H proved, plea of non-completion of 240 days loses significance – Termination held illegal [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Review under Articles 226 & 227 – Scope – High Court not to re-appreciate evidence unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Labour Court’s findings based on evidence and settled law – No ground for interference in State’s petition [Paras 16, 19].

Parity – Similarly Situated Workmen – Coordinate Bench Decisions – Awards granting only compensation modified to reinstatement with continuity – Orders confirmed by Division Bench in multiple LPAs – Judicial discipline requires similar relief in identical facts [Paras 11–18].

Relief – Reinstatement with Continuity – Back Wages Denied – Labour Court award modified in line with precedent – Employee directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages – Reinstatement to be effected within three months – State’s petition dismissed [Paras 20–22].

Decision:

Employee’s petition allowed – Labour Court award dated 05.01.2022 modified/confirmed to grant reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages – State’s petition dismissed – Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Bail – Attempt to Murder – KCOCA – Bail rejected for Accused Nos.3 and 4 – Petitioners alleged to have assaulted CW.2 with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries – Seizure of blood-stained dagger and cricket bat from petitioners confirmed by FSL report – CCTV footage corroborates incident – Petitioners involved in multiple prior criminal cases and are registered rowdy sheeters – Held: Prima facie case established against petitioners – Threat to witnesses if enlarged on bail – Bail denied [Paras 12–16]

Confessional Statement – Section 19 KCOCA – Validity of Confession – Petitioners challenged admissibility of confession recorded by DCP under Section 19 of KCOCA – Court held that in Bengaluru, DCP holds rank equivalent to Superintendent of Police – Confession held admissible under Section 19 – Challenge rejected [Para 13]

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Petitioners in custody for over 1½ years – Contended trial yet to commence – Cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 – Court distinguished case based on gravity of offences, evidence, and antecedents – Held: Nature of crime and threat to witnesses outweigh prolonged custody – Bail cannot be granted solely on basis of delay [Paras 3, 16]

Organised Crime – Applicability of KCOCA – Petitioners argued they were not members of organised crime syndicate – Court found sufficient material including overt acts, seizure of weapons, identification by witnesses, and involvement in previous cases – Held: Prima facie ingredients under KCOCA met – Bail rightly refused [Paras 3, 14–16]

Judicial Reasoning – Rejection of Bail – Courts must weigh nature of offence, evidence, and potential threat to witnesses – Prior criminal record relevant – Cited Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – Held: Bail to be denied when antecedents and facts indicate possibility of interference with justice [Para 15]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioners failed to make out any ground – Threat to witnesses and seriousness of offence considered.

Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Tokre Koli – Pre-Constitutional Documentary Evidence – Interpolation Allegation – Committee’s Order Quashed – Petitioner’s tribe certificate was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground of interpolation in birth registers and school records – Court scrutinized the original records and found no substantial evidence of tampering – Held: Different handwriting and ink do not by themselves prove interpolation – Documents authored by various officers over decades carry probative value – Committee failed to obtain expert opinion or examine custodians of records [Paras 10-14, 17-20]

Scheduled Tribe Claim – Burden of Proof – Section 8 of the 2000 Act – Petitioner submitted consistent caste entries dating back to 1912 describing ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ – Both terms appear at same serial number in ST list – Held: Burden under Section 8 was discharged – Scrutiny Committee failed to produce any adverse evidence to rebut petitioner’s documents [Paras 18-19]

Tribal Classification – Koli Dhor vs Tokre Koli – Committee rejected claim on grounds of inconsistency – Court followed precedent in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale – Held: Where multiple consistent pre-constitutional entries refer to ‘Dhor Koli’ and post-constitutional to ‘Tokre Koli’, they are to be read as referring to the same ST classification under Entry 28 – Benefit of doubt goes to petitioner [Para 22]

Affinity Test – Evidentiary Value – Committee rejected claim citing failed affinity test – Court reaffirmed that affinity test is not conclusive and must be considered with other probative evidence – Held: Failure of affinity test not fatal where documentary evidence is otherwise strong [Para 23]

Quasi-Judicial Duty – Committee’s Failure to Consider Petitioner’s Reply – No Comparison of Handwriting – No Examination of Custodian Officers – Held: Committee failed to apply mind independently and acted solely on Vigilance Report without verifying facts or following proper procedure [Paras 16-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – Committee directed to issue Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to petitioner within 4 weeks [Para 24]

Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (POA) Act – Appeal under Section 14A(2) – Alleged offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and BNS 2023 – FIR lodged by complainant alleging caste-based abuse and assault in public view – Appellant contended complaint was result of personal financial dispute and delay in lodging complaint unexplained – FIR filed nearly 2 years after alleged incidents – No prima facie material of abuse in public view – No injury suffered – Vehicle allegedly involved in assault not belonging to appellant – Held: No bar to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 18 of SC/ST Act – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 5, 8–10]

SC/ST Act – Section 18 – Bar on Anticipatory Bail – Scope – Complaint failed to disclose prima facie material showing caste-based abuse in public view – Held: Bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act not attracted – Protection of anticipatory bail available [Para 9]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Delay – Alleged incidents between April 2021 and September 2025 – Complaint filed only on 27.09.2025 – Delay of nearly two years not justified – Material facts not disclosed in initial complaint – Considered as material ground favouring bail [Paras 5, 9]

Bail – Grant of – Conditions Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and cooperation with investigation – Conditions imposed not to tamper with witnesses or commit similar offences [Para 10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of trial court dated 29.10.2025 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside – Anticipatory bail granted to appellant subject to conditions.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape – Conviction Set Aside – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 366A and 376 IPC for allegedly enticing and raping a 16-year-old girl – Victim voluntarily accompanied accused to Kanchipuram on pretext of marriage – No evidence of inducement or threat – Medical reports confirmed absence of physical injuries or recent intercourse – Held: Prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 366A or rape under Section 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 17–21].

Criminal Law – Consent and Age – Applicability of Pre-Amendment Law – Offence occurred on 31.05.2011 – Victim was 16 years, 2 months, and 18 days old – As per unamended law, consent above 16 years relevant – Application of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 to incident predating its enforcement held impermissible – Retrospective application of stricter penal provision violates Article 20(1) of Constitution – Conviction under amended standards illegal [Paras 11, 25–30].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 114A – Not Applicable – Section 114A applies only to charges under Section 376(2) IPC – No such charge framed against accused – No presumption of lack of consent could be drawn – Victim’s testimony lacked corroboration – Medical evidence confirmed absence of force – Held: Burden remained on prosecution, not discharged [Paras 22–23].

Judicial Interpretation – Doctrine of Non-Retrospectivity – Trial court erroneously applied post-2013 rape law to offence committed in 2011 – Bar under Article 20(1) of Constitution is absolute – Law cannot impose enhanced punishment retrospectively – Conviction and sentence contrary to binding constitutional protections – Acquittal warranted [Paras 25–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 366A and 376 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bond cancelled – Trial court directed to comply – Judgment to be circulated among judiciary and prosecution for strict adherence.