Minority Educational Institutions – Right to Administer – Appointment of Principal – Article 30(1) of the Constitution – Circulars declared unconstitutional – The appellant, a minority aided institution, challenged the Single Bench's order directing the Regional Additional Director to reconsider the in-charge assignment of Principal in accordance with circulars dated 25/08/2021 (modified 08/09/2021), which mandated assignment of current charge only to the senior-most faculty member – Held: The freedom to choose the person to be appointed as Principal is a vital facet of the right to administer a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) and is absolute in character – The said circulars, to the extent applied to minority institutions, are violative of Article 30(1) and declared unconstitutional – Relied upon: Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386; Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, (2017) 15 SCC 595 [Paras 8–15].

Article 30(1) – Scope – Minority Institution – Choice of Principal – Seniority Cannot Be Imposed – Management of a minority aided educational institution is free to appoint a Principal of its own choice and is under no obligation to appoint the senior-most qualified member – The right to choose the Principal, as the head responsible for the tone, temper, discipline, and academic efficiency of the institution, is an important part of the right of administration – Even receipt of State aid does not dilute this right – Once a conscious choice of a qualified person is made by the management, courts cannot examine the merits, rationality, or propriety of such choice [Paras 9–11, 14–15].

Administrative Instructions – Competence of Authority – Statutory Authority – An authority vested with power under the statute alone can exercise its discretion and pass orders – Even a superior authority cannot direct a statutory authority to act in a particular manner without statutory competence – Any decision taken at the behest of a person having no statutory role is patently illegal – Relied upon: Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435 [Paras 12, 14].

Decision: Writ appeals allowed – Order dated 5.8.2025 of the Single Bench set aside – Order dated 27.02.2025 giving in-charge of Principal to Dr. S.K. Upadhyay upheld – No order as to costs.

Matrimonial Law – Video Conferencing – Reconciliation Stage – Impermissibility – Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023 – Scope and Effect – Petitioner/husband residing in Texas, USA sought permission to participate in reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings pending before Civil Judge – Application dismissed by Trial Court – Held: Video conferencing in matrimonial proceedings is impermissible at the stage of reconciliation until reconciliation fails – Law settled by Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh applies with full force in Andhra Pradesh and is not rendered inapplicable by the AP High Court Rules for Video Conferencing, 2023 – Civil Revision Petition dismissed [Paras 66, 69-72].

Constitutional Law – High Court's Rule-Making Power – Article 227 – Limits – Rules framed by High Court under Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot take away the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court – Rules under Article 227(2)(b) shall not be inconsistent with any law for the time being in force – Expression "law" includes not only statutory enactments but also law declared through judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court binding under Article 141 – Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act fall within the domain of Parliament and State Legislatures; removing the basis of Santhini (supra) would require legislative amendment to those enactments, which lies outside the High Court's rule-making power under Article 227(2) – AP Video Conferencing Rules, 2023, being procedural in nature, apply only where video conferencing is otherwise permissible [Paras 46-57, 64, 68].

Video Conferencing – Matrimonial Disputes – Santhini Judgment – Majority View – Applicability – Minority view expressed in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh permitting video conferencing for reconciliation incorrectly cited in petition – Majority view in Santhini holds that video conferencing may be permitted only after settlement fails, on joint application or consent memoranda by both parties, subject to Family Court's discretion – Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar (supra), which permitted video conferencing for reconciliation, did not consider Santhini (supra) and cannot be followed as it is contrary to Supreme Court law – No need to declare Nerella Chiranjeevi Arun Kumar per incuriam; when a Co-ordinate Bench judgment conflicts with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court judgment prevails – Distinction between Civil Court and Family Court forum not relevant for applicability of Santhini (supra) [Paras 11-16, 66-67].

Video Conferencing – Mohammad Razik Shaik – Applicability – Not Per Incuriam – Contention that Mohammad Razik Shaik v. Sufia Sultana Bano Mohammad (2025 SCC OnLine AP 314) is per incuriam for not considering AP Video Conferencing Rules, 2023 rejected – Mohammad Razik Shaik correctly followed the majority view in Santhini (supra) – AP Rules for Video Conferencing, 2023 cannot alter legal position under Santhini (supra) – Impugned order dismissing the application for video conferencing during reconciliation stage is perfectly justified [Paras 22-28, 70-71].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 24.10.2025 dismissing application for video conferencing during reconciliation stage upheld as consonant with law settled in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Criminal Law – Bail – BNSS – Non-Compliance of Section 47 – Grounds of Arrest in Writing – Cyber Crime Case – Five petitioners arrested in connection with a cyber crime case involving operation of mule bank accounts for transfer of illegal funds – Arrests made after registration of FIR dated 09.01.2026 – Petitioners Rudra Madhab Mohapatra, Pananga Narayan Dash @ Pinu and Smruti Ranjan Moharana @ Chandan set up plea of non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Case Diary revealed no mention of date and time of arrest of petitioner Rudra Madhab Mohapatra; no written grounds of arrest furnished to any of the petitioners either immediately after arrest or two hours prior to production before Magistrate for remand – Held: Non-compliance of Sections 47/48 of BNSS read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution entitles all petitioners to be released on bail – Bail allowed in all five cases on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety [Paras 11-15].

Criminal Law – Arrest – Grounds of Arrest – Writing Mandatory – Mode and Manner – Section 47 BNSS – Article 22(1) of Constitution – Section 47 of BNSS is a statutory mandate as well as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands – In cases where arresting officer is unable to communicate grounds in writing at the time of arrest, it may be done orally, followed by written communication within a reasonable time and at least two hours prior to production for remand – In cases where police are already in possession of documentary material furnishing a cogent basis for arrest, written grounds must be furnished at the time of arrest itself – Non-compliance renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal – Law prospectively applicable from date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 5-11].

Criminal Law – Section 48 BNSS – Obligation to Inform Relatives/Friends of Arrest – Section 48 of BNSS casts a statutory obligation on the arresting officer to forthwith inform relatives, friends or persons nominated by the arrestee of the arrest and the place of detention – Additionally, duty is cast on the Magistrate before whom the arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that requirements of Section 48(2) and (3) have been complied with – These provisions are not empty formality; liberty of a person is priceless and cannot be compensated in terms of money [Paras 5-7, 12].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Co-accused Released – Charge Sheet Filed – Principal accused Bablu Nayak already granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge for non-compliance of Section 47 of BNSS – Other co-accused also enlarged on bail – Charge sheet submitted – Offences triable by Magistrate notwithstanding maximum punishment of life imprisonment under Sections 338/340 of BNS – Parity extended to petitioners [Paras 13-14].

Decision: All five bail applications allowed – Each petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court seized of the case on such terms and conditions as deemed fit – Soft copy of judgment to be communicated to concerned Court and thereafter to the concerned Jail through e-mail.

MSME Act – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Arbitral Award – Statutory Remedy – Petitioner challenged ex parte award of the MSME Facilitation Council, Kanpur directing payment of Rs. 24,15,835/- including interest, on grounds of improper service and bar of limitation – Held: Writ petition not maintainable where a specific statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is available – Acceptance of petitioner's submission would render the statutory mechanism redundant [Paras 9, 17–19].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Award – Mixed Questions of Fact and Law – Petitioner contended that the MSME Council proceeded ex parte without proper service, in violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Determination of proper service requires examination of mode of service, acknowledgment, and addresses, which are disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Issues are required to be examined by the forum competent under the statute [Paras 8–9].

Limitation – MSME Proceedings – Bar of Limitation – Petitioner contended that the claim was barred by limitation, the last supply having been made on 18.02.2017 and reference filed on 03.09.2020 – Held: Whether a claim is barred by limitation is a factual determination depending upon invoices, acknowledgments, and course of dealings, and does not justify bypass of statutory remedy under Section 34 – Reliance on Sonali Power Equipments (supra) does not permit such bypass [Paras 8, 12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Arbitral Matters – Scope of Interference – Scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 in arbitral matters is extremely limited and confined to cases of patent perversity or exceptional circumstances – No manifest perversity demonstrated on the face of the record in the present case – Reliance on Serosoft Solutions (supra) misplaced [Paras 11, 18].

Pre-Deposit – Section 19, MSME Act – Writ Filed to Avoid Pre-Deposit – Held: A party cannot bypass the statutory remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction to avoid compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the 2006 Act – Relied upon: India Glycols Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (2018) 1 SCC 143 [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable – Executing Court directed to decide pending applications expeditiously – Petitioner at liberty to avail statutory remedies available in law – No order as to costs.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction Confirmed – Sentence Modified – Appellant, owner of dance academy, convicted by Special Court under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 5(l) of POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl student aged 15 years 5 months – Victim's testimony consistent across complaint (Ex.P2), Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.P5), medical certificate (Ex.P3) and court deposition – Corroborated by evidence of PW.1 (father), PW.3 (dance instructor) and PW.11 (doctor) – Held: Prosecution proved offence beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed under Section 6 of POCSO Act; separate sentence under Section 376 IPC not necessary in view of clear case under Section 6 – Sentence modified to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment as trial court failed to assign reasons for imposing maximum sentence [Paras 33-34, 49-50].

POCSO Act – Proof of Age of Victim – School Bonafide Certificate – Admissibility – Evidentiary Value – Prosecution relied upon bonafide/study certificate (Ex.P10) issued by Baldwin Girls' High School showing victim's date of birth as 05.11.2001 and Age Estimation Certificate (Ex.P8) indicating radiological age above 16 years and below 18 years, both marked with consent of defence – Defence did not dispute or attempt to disprove the said documents – Held: A bonafide/study certificate issued on the basis of entries in the school admission register constitutes a "date of birth certificate from the school" within the meaning of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act – As a public document, Ex.P10 possesses evidentiary value and can be acted upon; defence having not challenged it, age of victim stood proved – Observation in P. Yuvaprakash v. State limited to its own facts [Paras 26-30].

Criminal Trial – Medical Evidence in Rape Cases – Absence of Injury – Effect – Absence of external injuries or semen stains on victim's clothes does not negate the offence or establish consent – Medical evidence serves as corroboration of victim's testimony rather than as a sole determinant of guilt – Delay in registration of case and examination of victim explained the absence of semen detection – Doctor (PW.11) confirmed hymen was not intact and victim was used to sexual activity – Accused not disputing that victim was used to sexual activity but denying responsibility – Held: Medical evidence corroborates prosecution case and does not advance the defence [Paras 41-43, 49].

Criminal Trial – Victim Testimony – Credibility – Delay in Complaint – Effect – Victim aged 15 years 5 months did not disclose assault to anyone until informed by PW.3's mother about a similar complaint – Held: Delay in disclosing sexual assault is a natural tendency in a young victim and does not render her testimony unreliable – Consistency across complaint, Section 164 statement and court deposition establishes credibility – Minor omissions do not make the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 untrustworthy [Para 34].

Sentencing – POCSO Act – Maximum Sentence – Reasons Required – Traces of Consent – Imposition of maximum sentence of life imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO Act requires valid reasons to be assigned by the trial court – Accused to be sentenced as per law in force on the date of crime i.e., before amendment of 16.08.2009, which permitted minimum 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to maximum life imprisonment – Strict scrutiny of victim's testimony disclosed a shadow of consent, though legally immaterial, which militates against maximum sentence – Sentence reduced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- payable to victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. [Para 50].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 5(l) of POCSO Act confirmed; offence treated as falling under Section 6 of POCSO Act – Sentence of life imprisonment set aside and modified to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to victim as compensation – Accused entitled to set off for period already spent in jail.

Forest Law – Mining – Extension of Forest Clearances – Applicability of 2023 Guidelines – Compensatory Afforestation for Pre-1980 Broken-Up Area – Petitioner holding Mining Lease Nos.2678 and 2679 (valid till 31.12.2033) sought extension of Forest Clearances (valid till 05.12.2026 and 10.12.2026) co-terminus with mining leases – State demanded CA charges of Rs.1,15,64,96,400/- and Rs.15,60,60,000/- respectively and directed identification of CA land of 629.90 Ha and 85.00 Ha for broken-up forest area prior to 1980 for which CA had not been provided – Petitioner contended that 2015 Communication deemed FCs co-terminus with mining leases and that 2023 Rules are inapplicable – Held: At the stage when extension of FCs falls due, prevailing statutory stipulations govern; 2023 Rules and Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act, being in force from 01.12.2023, are applicable – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 44, 59, 64-65].

Forest Clearance – Deemed Extension – 2015 Communication vs. 2023 Rules – UOI's communication dated 01.04.2015 stipulated that FCs shall be deemed extended co-terminus with mining lease subject to payment of NPV – Petitioner claimed NPV and CA charges already paid pursuant to Supreme Court's order dated 30.11.2006 and demand notices of 2006 – Held: 2015 Communication was an executive communication; upon coming into force of 2023 Rules and Consolidated Guidelines issued under Section 3C of the Amended Act in suppression of all previous guidelines, extension of FCs must comply with prevailing requirements – Santhipriya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka distinguished on facts as the 2023 Rules had not come into force when that judgment was rendered [Paras 55-59].

Compensatory Afforestation – Broken-Up Forest Area Prior to 1980 – CA and NPV Distinguished – CA and NPV are two separate and distinct requirements – NPV compensates for intangible ecosystem goods and services lost upon diversion of forest land; CA compensates loss of "land by land" and "trees by trees" – Although petitioner had paid NPV and CA charges for fresh/virgin areas in 2006, CA for broken-up area prior to 1980 (629.90 Ha under ML No.2678 and 85.00 Ha under ML No.2679) had not been provided – 2023 Guidelines specifically clarify that CA provisions are applicable for broken-up forest area before commencement of the FC Act where CA has not been raised earlier – Demand justified [Paras 49-51, 61-64].

Environmental Restitution – Principle Applied – Granting reliefs sought by petitioner would result in permitting mining operations to continue without complying with CA stipulations for broken-up area – Supreme Court's principle of environmental restitution requires restoration of damaged ecological systems – Accepting petitioner's contention would permit mining without CA for broken-up area contrary to environmental restitution principles [Paras 52, 63-64].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to comply with demand for compensatory afforestation as demanded vide impugned communications dated 20.06.2025 for consideration of extension of Forest Clearances – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Section 300(1) CrPC – Article 20(2) of the Constitution – Petitioner previously tried and convicted by JMFC Vadodara for offences under Sections 419/420 IPC in relation to forged bank drafts – Subsequently charge-sheeted before Trial Court at Dhar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in relation to the same bank drafts – Trial Court and Revisional Court rejected the application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Held: Two of the three bank drafts forming the subject matter of the Dhar case were identical to those in the Vadodara case; addition of one more draft at Vadodara does not change the nature of the offence – Subject matter and nature of offence being the same, Section 300(1) CrPC and Article 20(2) of the Constitution are squarely applicable – Proceedings at Dhar quashed [Paras 10–13].

Double Jeopardy – Application under Section 300(1) CrPC – Delay – Limitation – Revisional Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 300(1) CrPC solely on the ground of delay – Held: The protection against being tried for the same offence twice is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional and fundamental right under Article 20(2) – An application invoking the doctrine of double jeopardy cannot be rejected on the ground of delay or on the ground that evidence would be required to be led; such protection can be exercised at any point in the life of a trial [Para 12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Criminal Revision No. 128/2011 set aside – Further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2626 of 2007 pending before the Trial Court at Dhar quashed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility – Petitioner not present at the spot of recovery and not named in the FIR – 520 grams of heroin recovered from co-accused Lovepreet Singh alias Love – Petitioner implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused made during police custody – No independent recovery of contraband or discovery of fact from the petitioner consequent upon such disclosure – Held: Disclosure statement of a co-accused is inadmissible as substantive evidence against another accused; such statement recorded in police custody is prima facie hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted as nothing was recovered from the petitioner's possession – Bail granted [Paras 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12].

Bail – General Rule – Presumption of Innocence – Undertrial Custody – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for four months and five days – Trial not likely to be concluded in the near future – No material on record to indicate likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Held: Grant of bail is the general rule and incarceration is the exception; prolonged undertrial detention without prospect of early trial infringes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail allowed subject to conditions [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses, furnishing of address, and not leaving India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction – Special Judge – Magistrate's Jurisdiction Ceases on Addition of PC Act Sections – FIR registered for offences under IPC sections – During investigation, Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added by order dated 18.09.2006 – Thereafter, matter became a Special Case triable exclusively by Special Judge under Section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead of transmitting the record to the Special Judge, continued to pass orders including extension of time for investigation and taking cognizance of the chargesheet – Held: On addition of sections under Prevention of Corruption Act, Magistrate lost jurisdiction to deal with the matter any further – All orders passed by Magistrate after 18.09.2006 including extension of time for investigation and taking cognizance are without jurisdiction and are set aside and quashed – Record directed to be sent to Special Judge forthwith [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Procedure – West Bengal Amendment – Section 167(5) – Limitation on Investigation – Right to Discharge – Right Lapses on Filing of Chargesheet – Petitioner appeared before Magistrate on 11.06.2006 – Two-year period under Section 167(5)(iii) expired on 11.06.2008 – Petitioner did not file application for stopping investigation or discharge during the pendency of investigation – Application filed only on 12.08.2009, after chargesheet filed on 11.08.2009 and cognizance taken on 12.08.2009 – Held: Section 167(5) of CrPC as amended in West Bengal is intended only to ensure speedy completion of investigation within specified time – Once chargesheet is filed, accused cannot take advantage of the provision – Right to pray for stopping further investigation lapses upon filing of chargesheet – Following Durgesh Chandra Saha v. Bimal Chandra Saha [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Procedure – Prevention of Corruption Act – Nature of Case – Classification under Section 167(5) – Once Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act added, case becomes a Special Case under the PC Act – Such case is not exclusively Sessions-triable under Chapter XVIII of IPC and does not fall under Section 167(5)(ii) but under Section 167(5)(iii) — two-year limitation clause – Date of petitioner's appearance to be reckoned from 11.06.2006 being the date he voluntarily surrendered, not 08.06.2006 [Paras 18-22].

Quashing – Scope – Merits Not Decided – Transfer Ordered – High Court quashed orders passed by Magistrate after 18.09.2006 on jurisdictional grounds alone without going into merits – Revisional order of Additional Sessions Judge also set aside as it upheld void orders of Magistrate – Petitioner at liberty to raise all issues including discharge before Special Judge after transfer of records – Special Judge directed to take appropriate steps including steps for arrest of prime accused [Paras 29-32].

Decision: CRR No.1697 of 2012 disposed of – CRAN No.1 of 2012 disposed of – All orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling after 18.09.2006 set aside and quashed – Order of Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 27.06.2011 set aside – Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to immediately send records of G.R. Case No.59 of 2006 to the concerned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act – Special Judge directed to take appropriate steps including steps for arrest of prime accused and conclude trial at the earliest – Interim order vacated.