Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Culpable Homicide – Res Gestae – Four accused persons attacked the deceased Kalua and his son (PW-1) with lathis in a field dispute; the deceased died of grievous head injuries – P.W.-1, the injured son, gave reliable testimony not doubted by the trial court – P.W.-2 Ganga Saran, who was in a nearby field and reached the spot on hearing commotion, saw the accused assaulting the injured and deceased – Held: Statement of P.W.-2 is admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act; it forms part of the same transaction and his contemporaneous utterance is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Trial court erred in doubting P.W.-2's testimony – Common intention of all four accused being established, their joint liability under Section 34 is attracted not only for Section 323 IPC but also for Section 304 IPC; trial court committed gross illegality in acquitting accused under Section 304/34 IPC – However, no appeal for enhancement being pending, conviction under Section 304/34 IPC not restored [Paras 14–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Section 4 – Elderly Accused – No Criminal Antecedents – Pendency of Appeal Since 1988 – Appellants, now aged above 60 years, did not challenge conviction on merits but confined argument to sentence – No evidence of criminal antecedents or misuse of liberty during pendency of appeal – Appeal pending since 1988 – Held: Court has a mandatory duty to consider release on probation where circumstances in Section 4(1) are attracted; possibility of reformation cannot be ruled out; benefit of probation extended – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC set aside; appellants released on probation for one year subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with surety, and payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- each to the informant/victim within one month; in case of breach, original sentence to be undergone [Paras 22–31].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 323/34 IPC affirmed – Sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment set aside – Appellants Shiv Lal, Omkar and Ratibhan released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 subject to conditions of bond and payment of compensation – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal of deceased appellant Mani @ Mayaram already abated [Paras 29–34].

Civil Law — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Article 227 — Maintainability — Challenge to Ex-Parte Decree — Legal representatives of the judgment debtor challenged an ex-parte money decree dated 01.01.1985 and a restraint order dated 08.08.1993 passed in execution proceedings after a delay of over 29 years — Held: Petition under Article 227 challenging a decree assailable under CPC provisions is ordinarily not maintainable; however, since the petition was entertained four years ago and pleadings were complete, the Court proceeded to examine the matter on merits rather than relegate the parties — Ratio in Virudhunagar (supra) applies with full force against petitioners [Paras 19–21, 36].

Civil Procedure — Execution of Decree — Legal Representatives — Binding Effect — Sections 2(11), 50 and 146 CPC — Judgment debtor died in 1988 after the suit was decreed ex-parte in 1985; second execution application filed in 1989 against legal representatives — Submission that decree is not binding on legal representatives who were not parties to the suit, rejected — Decree is enforceable against legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor under the express provisions of CPC [Paras 22–23].

Civil Procedure — Execution Proceedings — Auction Sale — Decree Holder as Auction Purchaser — Order XXI Rule 72 CPC — Decree holder purchased property at auction with express permission of the executing court — Earlier auction without court permission was set aside on objection of judgment debtors; fresh auction conducted thereafter with requisite permission — Auction confirmed on 13.08.1999; sale certificate registered; actual physical possession delivered; execution proceedings closed in full satisfaction — All objections under Section 47 CPC decided on merits; no further challenge laid thereto — Held: No infirmity in auction sale; executing court cannot go behind the decree and challenge to its validity not permissible in supervisory jurisdiction after 40 years [Paras 28–36].

Civil Procedure — Finality of Decree — Challenge After 40 Years — Abuse of Process — Petitioners suppressed material facts and filed incomplete order sheet to obtain ex-parte interim stay against eviction although possession had already been delivered to decree holder — Contradictory pleadings on question of knowledge adopted in petition and written submissions — Court found petitioners guilty of raising false and misleading pleas to secure interim order — Conduct condemned — Cost of Rs. 2/- imposed so as to convey the worth of their objections and conduct [Paras 47–49].

Decision: Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 2/-; petitioners directed to deposit cost before Registrar General by 07.07.2026; District Magistrate, Saharanpur directed to recover cost as arrears of land revenue in case of default; administration directed to ensure no hindrance in securing actual and physical possession of contesting respondents; compliance report directed on or before 12.08.2026.

Civil Writ - Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 9(4) - Organ Transplantation - Near Relative Donor - Rejection of Application - Authorization Committee rejected application for kidney donation from mother to son citing lack of proof of relationship - Held - When a donor claims the recipient is her own biological son the request cannot be casually ignored - Committee members are human beings and must recognize that love and affection are intangible sentiments that cannot always be measured by the length of association - Permission should be granted if donation is out of love and affection without financial transaction or coercion - [Paras 2-4]

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 9(4) - Proof of Motive - Commercial Element - Burden of Proof - Held - Applicants can only assert the absence of commercial dealing and cannot be called upon to prove a negative - Scrutiny under Rule 17 allows for verification but excessive burden cannot be laid on applicants - In the absence of definite material establishing financial dealings the statement of the donor regarding love and affection must be taken at face value - [Paras 4-5]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Evidence - Preponderance of Probabilities - Identification Documents - Petitioners produced birth certificate and Aadhaar and PAN cards - Documents established Petitioner 1 as the wife of Ratan Lal Chaurasia and Petitioner 2 as his son - Held - Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities the relationship is clearly established - A biological mother should not be directed to undergo a DNA test to prove maternity when credible identification documents are available - Impugned order of the Authorization Committee set aside - [Paras 6-7]

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 2(k) - Payment - Post-Donation Care - Duties of Authorization Committee - Definition of payment excludes defraying certain expenditures - Held - Recipient is obliged to defray costs and the Committee must ensure this obligation is discharged - Committee should direct medical insurance coverage and a lump sum deposit or monthly credit to the donor's account for three years to ensure physical and medical needs are met - Such arrangements do not run counter to the statutory scheme - [Para 5]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 17.04.2026 set aside – Second respondent directed to grant permission for kidney donation and transplantation forthwith – Procedure to be completed preferably by next week.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Rape Victim – Advanced Gestational Age – MTP Refused on Medical Grounds – Petition filed on behalf of a 14-year-old rape survivor (FIR No. 0038/2026, P.S. D.H. Pora, Kulgam) seeking permission to terminate pregnancy at approximately 25–27 weeks, exceeding the statutory limit under the MTP Act, 1971 – Medical Board constituted pursuant to Court's directions opined categorically that termination at this advanced stage carried extremely high risk of obstetric complications including prolonged and failed induction, hysterectomy, postpartum haemorrhage, puerperal sepsis, need for multiple blood transfusions and secondary infertility as a long-term sequel – Held: Court cannot override expert Medical Board opinion when the same warns of imminent threat to the life of the minor; prayer for MTP refused [Paras 22–32, 45].

Age Determination – Medical Discrepancy – Radiological Assessment – Age alleged to be 14 years; Medical Board noted discrepancy between alleged age and radiological findings – Medico-Legal Board constituted including dental expert – Post Graduate Department of Radio Diagnosis and Imaging assessed age as between 17 and 18 years; Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Srinagar, assessed age as approximately 16 years – Court proceeded on the basis that the victim is a minor [Paras 16–21].

MTP Act, 1971 – Explanation 2 to Section 3 – Rape-Induced Pregnancy – Presumption of Grave Mental Injury – Petitioner argued that Explanation 2 raises a statutory presumption of grave injury to mental health where pregnancy is caused by rape, operating with greater force in case of a minor survivor – Held: The right to seek termination is not absolute and must be balanced against medical realities; once the Medical Board opines against termination due to serious danger to life, sympathy alone cannot be a ground for a constitutional court to permit the procedure [Paras 7, 36, 41].

Judicial Review – Primacy of Medical Opinion – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Courts not expected to substitute their views for those of specialist medical experts – Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised in a manner contrary to settled medical opinion, particularly where medical complexities and high-risk procedures are involved – Doctrine of parens patriae obligates the Court to prioritize preservation of life where competing interests of psychological trauma of continued pregnancy and imminent medical danger of termination arise – Right to life under Article 21 encompasses reproductive autonomy but also the right to survival of the pregnant woman [Paras 28, 33–35, 41–44].

Distinguished Case – S vs. Union of India and Ors., SLP No. 14454/2026 – Supreme Court permitted MTP at 28 weeks gestational age where the Medical Board itself had opined that the minor was physically fit for termination – Present case distinguished on facts: Medical Board categorically opined against termination due to grave life-threatening risks, unlike the precedent relied upon by the petitioner [Paras 24–27].

Welfare and Rehabilitation – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 2(14), 35 and 38 – Minor rape victim declared a "Child in Need of Care and Protection" by Child Welfare Committee, Kulgam – Court directed comprehensive institutional support: LallaDed Hospital, Srinagar, to provide free pre- and post-delivery medical care, counselling and confidentiality; SSP to provide security; adoption and registration formalities to be completed in consultation with Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) and Child Welfare Committee – Monthly compliance reports directed [Paras 46–56].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed insofar as it seeks permission for medical termination of pregnancy – All undertakings and assurances by Medical Superintendent, LallaDed Hospital, Srinagar, and Nodal Officer, Directorate of Mission Vatsalya, J&K, regarding medical care, confidentiality and overall welfare of Minor Victim "X" and the prospective newborn to be strictly implemented – Medical Superintendent, Lalla Ded Hospital; Nodal Officer, Directorate of Mission Vatsalya, J&K; and SSP, Kulgam and Srinagar, directed to file monthly compliance reports before the Registry – Disposed of [Paras 55–58].

Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Promotion - Right to be considered - Held - The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right though there is no fundamental right to promotion itself - If a person satisfies the eligibility criteria and is not considered it results in a clear violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) - Promotion is a facet of equal opportunity in matters of employment - [Paras 7-9]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Inordinate delay in initiation - Charge memo issued in 2026 for an incident occurring in 2016 - Held - Initiation of enquiry with abnormal and unexplained delay is prejudicial to the delinquent employee - Disciplinary proceedings should be concluded expeditiously to prevent mental agony and monetary loss - Delay defeats justice and causes prejudice unless the employee is responsible for the delay - Following P.V. Mahadevan vs MD T.N. Housing Board the court emphasized balancing clean administration with the rights of the employee - [Paras 7-8]

Service Law - Seniority - Retrospective Promotion - Effective date of promotion - Held - Promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted and not from the date a vacancy arises - Retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre as it might adversely affect others - Seniority is to be reckoned from the date of vacancy within the quota - [Paras 9-10]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Promotion consideration - Petitioner's name was not being considered due to pending disciplinary proceedings despite a stay on the sanction in another writ petition - Held - Respondent authorities directed to consider the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 2025-2026 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 while considering seniority and eligibility - [Paras 5-10]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 2025-2026 based on seniority and G.O.Ms.No.257 – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Motion Picture Ban - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Article 19(1)(a) - Petitioner a practising lawyer sought a ban on the film Karuppu alleging damaging portrayal of Courts and judicial functions - The film depicted a corrupt presiding officer and an unethical advocate in a fictional court located at Seven Wells - The High Court observed that artistic expression is entitled to a high pedestal and artistic license allows for exaggeration and melodrama - Held - The Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Central Board of Film Certification which is an expert body - Once a film is certified the State must maintain law and order rather than seeking a ban - The petitioner failed to challenge the CBFC certificate through a Writ of Certiorari and instead sought a Mandamus which is not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Article 19(2) - Scope of Artistic License - An artist has the freedom to express thoughts through any medium including movies - Artistic productions are weighed on a different scale than documentaries or factual essays - Commitment to free speech involves protecting even unpalatable speech - Judiciary is not exempt from criticism and justice is not a cloistered virtue - Held - Freedom of expression is the rule and the judicial caravan must move on despite outspoken comments or lack of respect in movie dialogues - [Paras 7-16].

Contempt Law - Criminal Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Scandalizing the Court - The movie unfolds in an imaginary court called Seven Wells Court - Petitioner contended that the portrayal scandalized the judicial system - The Court held that the word Court in Section 2(c) refers to an actual Court - Portrayal of corruption in an imaginary or fictional court does not attract penal provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act - Held - No case of criminal contempt is made out as the entire judicial system was not portrayed as corrupt and the setting was purely fictional - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Service Law – Suspension – Prima Facie Evidence of Gross Dereliction – Rule 10(1)(d) CCA Rules – Petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Health and Family Welfare Department, was suspended vide order dated 01.05.2026 under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, on the ground of prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty consequent upon the collapse of a compound wall in his jurisdiction – Two committees (one comprising the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar, and another comprising officers of the Public Works Department) were constituted to investigate the matter, but their reports were pending at the time of the suspension order – Tribunal refused interim stay – Held: The phrase "prima facie evidence against him" in clause (d) requires evidence specifically implicating the officer proposed to be suspended, and not merely evidence of the event itself – The falling of the compound wall per se cannot constitute prima facie evidence of gross dereliction attributable to the Petitioner in the absence of committee reports – Suspension order set aside; liberty reserved to respondents to initiate action upon receipt of the committee reports [Paras 4–11].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 2561 of 2026 set aside – Suspension order bearing No. Aa Ku Ka 171 CGIM 2026 dated 01.05.2026 set aside – Respondents at liberty to exercise powers under Rule 10(1)(d) of the CCA Rules upon receipt of the committee reports [Para 12].

Civil Law - Suit for Declaration - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VI Rule 2 - Pleadings - Mofussil area - Liberal construction - Suit for declaration and injunction filed in rural area - Held - Courts should adopt a liberal approach toward mofussil pleadings to overlook technical drafting defects common in rural areas - Focus must remain on the substance and intent of the parties rather than hyper-technical or formalistic rigor - [Paras 29-34]

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 99 - Non-joinder of necessary parties - Lessee - Effect of non-impleadment - Held - In a suit for title and injunction where the lessor is already arrayed as a defendant a person claiming to be a lessee under said lessor is neither an essential nor a necessary party - Section 99 prevents reversal of a decree for non-joinder unless it affects the merits or jurisdiction - [Paras 35-37]

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Attestation - Presumption of knowledge and consent - Relative as attesting witness - Distinction between stranger and interested relative - Held - While mere attestation generally verifies execution only where a person with a tangible interest in the property attests a deed executed by a close relative a presumption of fact arises that they knew the contents and consented to the transaction - Such attestation by nephew-cousins of the plaintiffs' predecessors in ancient mortgage deeds supported the plaintiffs' claim of independent enjoyment - [Paras 55-70]

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 11, 13(a), 32(3) and 32(7) - Admissibility of evidence - Boundary recitals - Documents not inter-parties - Held - Recitals as to boundaries in documents that are not inter-parties are inadmissible in evidence to prove title unless the executant of the document is examined in Court - Boundary recitals in deeds relating to adjacent properties cannot be relied upon to prove title of the suit property without examining the parties to those deeds - [Paras 74-78]

Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Declaration of title - Burden of proof - Revenue records - Held - In a suit for declaration the burden lies strictly on the plaintiff to prove title - Title cannot be decreed based on the weakness of the defendant's case or revenue records alone - Revenue records are meant for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title - [Paras 44-45, 80-82, 91]

Possession - Injunction - Settled possession - Protection against dispossession - Held - Law respects possession even without supporting title - A person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law - Plaintiffs proved continuous possession through revenue records for over a decade entitling them to a permanent injunction even where title to one item was not proved - [Paras 83-86]

Decision: Second Appeals partly allowed – Decree for declaration of title regarding Item No. I (Survey No. 588/2) is set aside – Relief of permanent injunction for Item No. I is confirmed based on settled possession – Decree for declaration of title and possession for Item No. II (Survey No. 588/3) is confirmed – No costs.

Criminal Law - Further Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173 - Challenge to acceptance of Negative Final Report and rejection of protest petition - FIR registered in 2015 regarding murder of petitioner brother - Investigating Officer submitted Negative Report citing inability to trace unknown accused despite efforts - Narcoanalysis test of petitioner was consented to but refused by authorities on ground that subject was not fluent in Hindi language - Petitioner sought direction for fair and impartial investigation including narcoanalysis test - High Court expressed shock at reasoning provided by investigating agency - Court observed that lack of fluency in a particular language cannot be a ground for refusal of such tests - Investigating authorities are expected to depute persons acquainted with the mother tongue of the witness or suspect - Held - Impugned order quashed - Matter remitted for further investigation to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector - Investigation to include narcoanalysis test of petitioner or other suspects with necessary language assistance - [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Law - Narcoanalysis Test - Language Interpreter - Guidelines for Scientific Tests - Investigating Officer closed investigation because narcoanalysis could not be conducted due to petitioner lack of fluency in Hindi - Court held that language barrier is not a valid ground for denial - Reference made to landmark judgment in Selvi vs State of Karnataka - Held - Personnel involved in narcoanalysis must include a forensic psychologist- anaesthesiologist- psychiatrist- general physician and a language interpreter if needed - Procedure must strictly adhere to Supreme Court guidelines and be recorded in audio-video format - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order dated 23.09.2022 quashed and set aside – Matter remitted for further investigation by a Circle Inspector – Investigation to be completed expeditiously.