Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail Application Dismissal 

Gursewak Singh appealed against the dismissal of his regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Special Judge, Amritsar. [Para 1, 4]

Prosecution Sanction Under UAP Act 

Concerns were raised about the prosecution under the UAP Act due to the absence of pre-requisite sanction from the competent authority at the time of the presentation of the challan. [Para 8]

Specific Role Attribution and Evidence 

The prosecution failed to attribute a specific role to the appellant in the commission of offences under the UAP Act and other IPC sections, lacking material evidence against him. [Para 9, 10]

4. Bail Grant Considerations 

The appeal was allowed considering the appellant's lengthy custody and the slow pace of the trial, with directions for bail upon furnishing a bond and regular reporting to the local police station. [Para 11]

5. Decision Without Prejudice to Trial Merits 

The High Court set aside the Special Court's order, granting regular bail to the appellant, clarifying that the observations made were solely for bail purposes. [Para 12, 13]

Writ Petition – Selection of Melsanthi (Head Priest) – Challenge to the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24) – Allegation of improper conduct in the draw of lots – Petitioner seeking a re-conduct of the selection process. [Paras 1, 7, 8]

CCTV Footage and News Item Review – Court’s observation of video evidence – Examination of the alleged irregularities in the selection process based on CCTV footage and a news item from 'Asianet News' – No specific allegations against the 5th respondent found. [Paras 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16]

Selection Process – Draw of Lots – Procedure of draw of lots for Melsanthi – Allegations of partial unfolding and improper rolling of lots – Court finds no substantial evidence to invalidate the selection process. [Paras 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Decision – No Interference in Selection – Finding no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi based on the evidence and arguments – Writ petition challenging the selection process dismissed. [Paras 16, 17]

Regulatory Directions – Restriction on Entry to ‘Sopanam Enclosure’ – Specific direction regarding the entry of persons to the Sopanam enclosure during the draw of lots – Aimed to regulate and streamline the selection process. [Para 18]

Arbitration – Challenge to Arbitral Awards – Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against arbitral awards in favor of respondents concerning wage arrears claims – Presidential Directives and Settlement Memoranda considered – Tribunal's mandate to adjudicate the quantum of arrears payable from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2007 upheld – Petitioner’s objections regarding scope of the Tribunal’s mandate and the legality of the Presidential Directive rejected – Tribunal's findings on admission of dues by Petitioner and direction for payment of arrears including interest upheld – Petitions dismissed. [Paras 2-60]

Presidential Directive – Binding Nature and Tribunal Jurisdiction – Presidential Directives issued under Section 9 of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 are binding on the enterprise but are administrative in nature – Tribunal has jurisdiction to assess legality and validity of directives when referred to arbitration by the Supreme Court – Tribunal’s decision to override Presidential Directive for payment of wage arrears based on DPE Guidelines and factual circumstances upheld. [Paras 38-44, 50]

Interest on Arbitral Awards – Post-award interest on entire adjudged amount – Tribunal empowered to award interest on sum inclusive of the adjudged amount and interest – Decision in Vedanta Ltd. distinguished – Tribunal’s direction for payment of compound interest upheld. [Paras 57-59]

Arbitral Awards – Minimal Judicial Interference – Courts to exercise restraint in reviewing arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act – Judicial review limited to grounds of patent illegality or perversity going to the root of the matter – Tribunal’s findings based on careful consideration of submissions and materials, interference by court not warranted. [Paras 55-56]

Labor Disputes – Entitlement to Wage Arrears – Employees' entitlement to wage arrears from 01.01.1997 as per DPE Guidelines despite Presidential Directive stipulating notional fixation – Arbitral Tribunal’s finding in favor of employees based on evidence and recommendations by the petitioner to the Union of India – Petitioner's recommendations deemed as admission of liability to pay arrears – Tribunal’s decision to award arrears upheld. [Paras 45-47, 53-54]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Irregularities in the functioning of Special Olympics Bharat (SOB) - Alleged favoritism and irregularities in the selection of sportspersons for Special Olympics World Games and in the appointment of office-bearers of SOB - Violation of guidelines and regulations - SOB recognized as a National Sports Federation with specific conditions - Continuation of office-bearers beyond the prescribed tenure - Appointment of National Coach without following selection guidelines - Allegations against SOB.

Compliance with National Sports Development Code (NSDC) - SOB submits amendments to trust deed in compliance with NSDC, limiting the tenure of office-bearers - Positive developments during the proceedings, including the appointment of new office-bearers and selection of coaches in accordance with NSDC guidelines.

Resolution of the issues raised by the Petitioner - Appreciation for the accomplishments of athletes with intellectual disabilities and SOB's efforts - Emphasis on SOB's continued compliance with NSDC for future elections and selections.

Decision of the PIL - PIL allowed and disposed of with gratitude for the assistance of the Learned Amicus. [Para 1-16]

Land Demarcation and Ownership Dispute – Challenge to the demolition process of encroachments by DDA in Mehrauli Archaeological Park – Petitioners assert ownership over properties within khasra No. 1151/3 of Village Mehrauli, disputing DDA's claim of government land – Demolition notice dated 12th December, 2022, based on demarcation report dated 21st December, 2021, contested for not following due process – Demarcation accuracy and property location in question – Writ court's jurisdiction limited, not extending to intricate factual determinations of land demarcation – Petitioners' rights to be determined by competent authority or civil courts – Demolition notice quashed for non-compliance with procedural fairness under Section 30 of the DDA Act – Direction for DDA to reissue notice, allowing petitioners a fair hearing. [Paras 1, 3, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 18-21]

Conservation Efforts and Judicial Supervision – DDA's responsibility to maintain Mehrauli Heritage Zone as per court directives – High Court's involvement in overseeing conservation does not absolve DDA from following legal procedures – Importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory procedures highlighted. [Paras 5, 16-17]

Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions – DDA's demolition action without show-cause notice contravenes principles of natural justice and statutory requirements – Affected persons entitled to a hearing before property deprivation – Court upholds petitioners' objection on procedural grounds, mandates corrective action by DDA. [Paras 16-17, 19]

Writ Court's Jurisdiction – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 limited in matters requiring specialized knowledge and technical expertise in land demarcation – Emphasis on statutory authorities' role in resolving complex land disputes – High Court refrains from adjudicating on demarcation report, allows petitioners recourse to appropriate forums. [Paras 7-8, 12-13, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – FIR No.264/2017 under Sections 326-B/506 IPC challenged – Allegations of acid attack by petitioner on respondent no.2 – Inherent improbability of allegations and lack of injury evidence led to questioning the authenticity of the FIR – Mala fide initiation of proceedings due to property dispute evident – FIR quashed. [Para 1, 6, 9-11, 15, 21-24]

Property Dispute – Core of the dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2 – Ongoing conflict over property rights leading to a contrived criminal charge against the petitioner – Context of malicious intent established through previous complaints regarding unauthorized construction. [Para 2.1, 6(iii)-(iv), 13-14]

Evidence Evaluation – No external injury consistent with acid attack found – Contradictory medical and police records indicated no acid found on respondent no.2 – FSL report’s findings of Hydrochloric Acid on tiles not substantiated by physical injuries – Statements of alleged eyewitnesses not corroborating the prosecution's claim. [Para 9-12, 16]

Application of Legal Principles – Supreme Court’s criteria in Bhajan Lal for quashing FIRs applied – Current case falls under the categories warranting quashing to prevent abuse of legal process and to serve justice – Chargesheet presence does not bar FIR quashing – High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC reaffirmed for such circumstances. [Para 17-23]

Decision – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Petition allowed based on findings of abuse of legal process and lack of credible evidence against the petitioner – Legal principles and precedents applied to secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of court's process. [Para 21, 24]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Additional Directors under Negotiable Instruments Act – Application for quashing FIR and process against additional directors in a cheque dishonor case – Application allowed, process quashed. [Para 1, 16]

Negotiable Instruments Act, Sections 138 and 141 – Interpretation and Applicability – Clarification on applicability of Sections 138 and 141 to additional directors – Specific averments required to establish responsibility for conduct of company’s business. [Para 9, 10, 13]

Director’s Liability – Types of Directors – Analysis of roles and responsibilities of Managing Directors, Non-Executive Directors, Executive Directors, and Additional Directors – No automatic vicarious liability for additional directors without specific averments. [Para 12, 13]

Judicial Discretion under Section 482 of CrPC – Inherent powers of High Court – Exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applied to quash proceedings lacking prima facie satisfaction of legal provisions. [Para 14, 15]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against applicants (additional directors) quashed – Lack of specific averments against applicants and non-satisfaction of ingredients under Sections 138, 141, and 142 of NI Act. [Para 16]

Criminal Revision Petition – Seeking Discharge Under Section 227 of CrPC – Rejection by Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur – Revision Petitioner/Accused files petition challenging dismissal. [Para 1]

Offences Charged – Accused charged under Sections 448, 461, 392, and 397 IPC – Trial court cognizance for offences under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC – Accused's plea for reevaluation of charges under Section 392 IPC dismissed by lower court. [Para 3]

Prosecution Allegations – Accused allegedly administered poisonous substances to victims for theft – Theft of gold ornaments following victims’ incapacitation – Allegations align with definition of robbery under Section 390 IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Analysis – Differentiating between simple robbery under Section 392 IPC and aggravated forms under Sections 394 and 397 IPC – Consideration of nature of hurt caused to victims in determining applicable sections. [Para 5-6]

Expert Testimony – Witness accounts and expert opinion indicating administration of poisonous substances to victims, leading to prolonged hospitalization – Prima facie evidence suggesting attempt to cause death, categorizing offence under Section 397 IPC. [Para 7]

Charge Framing – Necessity for clarity and specificity in charges – Recommendation to frame charges under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC only. [Para 8]

Decision – Modification of impugned order – Charges against petitioner to be framed for offences under Sections 448, 461, 328, and 397 IPC. [Para 9]

Maternity Leave for Surrogate Mothers – Legal Recognition and Entitlement:

The central issue is whether a surrogate mother can be denied maternity leave under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The petitioner, a mother through surrogacy, sought maternity leave for her newborn twins but was denied by state authorities. The case examines the eligibility of surrogate mothers for maternity leave and its implications on their rights under the Constitution of India. [Para 4, 5, 7]

Interpretation of Maternity Leave Provisions – Inclusivity of Surrogacy:

The judgment explores the interpretation of 'maternity leave' and its applicability to surrogate mothers. The court considered various High Court decisions, emphasizing the need for inclusive interpretation of maternity leave provisions in the light of developments in reproductive technologies and societal changes. [Para 13-17, 20-26]

Right to Motherhood under Article 21 – Constitutional Perspective:

The court recognized the right to motherhood as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the necessity of extending maternity leave to surrogate mothers, considering the importance of the mother-child bond and the well-being of the child. [Para 25, 27]

Order – Grant of Maternity Leave to Petitioner:

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order denying maternity leave to the petitioner. The court directed the respondents to grant 180 days of maternity leave to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. [Para 30]

Recommendation for Legislative Amendment – Addressing Surrogacy in Maternity Leave Provisions:

The court recommended legislative amendments to explicitly include provisions for maternity leave for surrogate and commissioning mothers, acknowledging the evolving nature of motherhood and family structures. [Para 31]

Decision – No Distinction in Motherhood Forms:

The judgment established that no distinction should be made between natural, biological, and surrogate mothers regarding maternity leave entitlements, affirming the rights of all mothers under the Constitution. [Para 29, 31]