Domestic Violence Act – Amendment of Complaint – Scope and Permissibility – Wife sought amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate details of shared household and consequential prayer under Section 19 DV Act – Trial Court allowed amendment to enable leading of evidence pursuant to earlier order granting liberty – Appellate Court set aside amendment holding dispute to be property dispute requiring civil adjudication – Held: Amendment was consequential and necessary for effective adjudication of residence claim – Does not change nature of complaint – Order of Appellate Court erroneous and liable to be quashed [Paras 20-24, 26].

Section 29 DV Act – Appeal – Maintainability – Appeal against purely procedural order such as allowing amendment of pleadings not maintainable – Reliance placed on Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti – Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with procedural order – Impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 25-26].

Shared Household – Residence Rights – Section 19 DV Act – Wife permitted to lead evidence regarding residence order – Amendment to specify property details essential before adducing evidence – Pleadings must precede proof – Denial of amendment would defeat substantive right under benevolent legislation [Paras 19-21, 24].

Addition of Transferee Relative as Respondent – Section 2(q) DV Act – Property transferred by husband to nephew during pendency of proceedings after liberty granted to lead evidence – Addition of nephew as respondent held consequential – Whether domestic relationship exists is matter of evidence – Amendment necessary to effectively adjudicate residence rights – Appellate Court erred in treating matter as complex property dispute [Paras 22-24].

Parallel Civil Proceedings – Effect – Section 26 DV Act permits seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22 in other legal proceedings – Availability of civil remedy does not bar proceedings under DV Act – Reliance placed on Satish Chandra Ahuja – Concurrent remedies permissible [Paras 23-24].

Power to Amend in DV Proceedings – If not read into Act, object of legislation would be defeated – Reliance placed on Kunapareddy – Amendment permissible so long as it does not alter basic nature of complaint [Para 24].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Orders dated 03.12.2025 passed by Ad-hoc DJ-1 & ASJ, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal Nos.53/2025 and 54/2025 quashed and set aside – Orders dated 12.06.2025 passed by JMFC, Pachora allowing amendment (Exh.28A) and addition of respondent (Exh.30A) restored – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously.

Right to Information – Answer Sheets – Marks of Candidates – Photocopies – Petitioners challenged CIC orders directing supply of photocopies of answer sheets of candidates in Railway recruitment examination – CIC held answer sheets disclosable as Railways conducts examination to fill posts, a public activity – High Court holds marks obtained by candidates in a competitive examination is not private information and is disclosable under RTI Act – However, supply of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates not compellable; perusal of one's own answer sheet is sufficient – CIC orders quashed to extent of directing supply of photocopies – Writ petition partly allowed [Paras 17–23].

"Personal Information" vs. Public Activity – Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act – Marks of Candidates in Competitive Examination

Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of individual privacy – Where government or public authority is organizer or participant, information relating to such activity is accessible in public interest – Marks obtained by candidates in a public examination conducted by a government authority to fill posts has an element of public activity – Disclosure of marks of a co-candidate to another candidate who participated in the same examination does not amount to invasion of privacy and is not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Such information is disclosable under the RTI Act [Paras 8–17].

"Third Party Information – Section 11, RTI Act – Safeguards Before Disclosure

Section 11 mandates notice to a third party before disclosure of information relating to or supplied by such party treated as confidential – Disclosure may still be allowed if public interest in disclosure outweighs possible harm to the third party – However, where information sought (marks) is not such personal information as to require consent under Section 8, notice obligation does not arise as a matter of right for a co-candidate [Para 8, 11].

"Photocopies of Answer Sheets – Right of Co-Candidate – Perusal vs. Supply

No vested right in a candidate to obtain photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates – Permitting perusal of another candidate's answer sheet on working days suffices the requirement under the Act – A candidate can always seek photocopy of his own answer sheet – If a candidate finds irregularity in checking of other candidate's answer sheet upon perusal, he may question it in appropriate legal proceedings where the court can summon the answer sheets – Authority cannot be compelled to supply photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates [Para 17].

"Sufficiency of Information – RTI Act – Obligation to Furnish

Where an application under the RTI Act seeks relevant information, and sufficient information has been furnished, the application stands satisfied – It is not always necessary to provide copies of official records or documents which the department considers unnecessary for the purpose for which information was sought – If sufficient information has been supplied and perusal of records is permitted, it suffices the mandate of the Act, 2005 [Para 18].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Orders of the Central Information Commission dated 13.05.2009 and 04.06.2009 quashed to the extent they directed supply of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates to the respondent – Disclosure of marks, already supplied by petitioners vide letter dated 28.05.2009, held to be sufficient information – No direction for further supply of photocopies of answer sheets – Costs made easy [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interim Order without Disposal of Injunction Applications – Trial Court directed defendants not to alienate suit property without adjudicating I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Petitioners contended that written statement and objections were already filed and applications were pending consideration – Held: Since injunction applications were not disposed of on merits, Trial Court directed to consider and pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides without being influenced by impugned order – Petition disposed of with directions – All rival contentions kept open [Paras 3-4].

Temporary Injunction – Duty of Court to Decide Pending Applications – Applications for temporary injunction cannot remain pending while interim directions affecting rights of parties continue – Proper course is to adjudicate applications on merits after hearing parties – High Court refrained from expressing opinion on merits and fixed time frame of one month for disposal from next date of hearing – Notice to respondents dispensed with in view of limited directions issued [Paras 2-4].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Trial Court directed to consider and decide I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 on merits within one month from next date of hearing – Impugned order not to influence decision – All contentions kept open.

Criminal Law – Section 183 BNSS – Re-recording of Statement – Victim sought mandamus for re-recording of her statement alleging it was not correctly recorded and not read over – Held: Section 183 BNSS (pari materia to Section 164 CrPC) contemplates recording of statement ordinarily only once with strict procedural safeguards – No statutory mandate for multiple recordings – Re-recording permissible only in exceptional circumstances where integrity of original statement is seriously compromised – No such exceptional circumstance made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 12, 16, 19–20].

Magisterial Statement – Safeguards and Voluntariness – Court elaborated scope and object of Section 183 BNSS – Magistrate must ensure voluntariness, explain consequences, read over statement and obtain signature – Provision acts as judicial filter between police investigation and trial – Higher evidentiary value than police statement under Section 180 BNSS – Safeguards protect against coercion and uphold Articles 20(3) and 21 of Constitution [Paras 9–11, 15].

High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Articles 226/227 – Power to Direct Fresh Statement – High Court may in extraordinary jurisdiction direct re-recording where grave procedural lapse, coercion, or serious infirmity is prima facie established – Power not routine or investigative in nature – Cannot compel Magistrate to record second statement as general rule – To be exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 13–16].

Factual Finding – Compliance with Procedure – Certified copy of statement revealed that it was recorded on basis of oral narration, read over to victim, signed by her, and noted to be voluntary – No prima facie procedural violation – Trial Court’s observation that second statement can be directed only in exceptional circumstances upheld [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No extraordinary circumstances warranting re-recording of statement under Section 183 BNSS [Para 20].

Bail – POCSO Offences – Right of Victim to be Heard – Bail granted to accused in case involving penetrative sexual assault on minor without issuing notice to victim – Section 40 POCSO Act read with Rule 4(13) to (15) of POCSO Rules, 2020 and Section 483(2) BNSS mandate intimation and participatory rights of victim – Held: Victim is entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing at the stage of bail – Bail order set aside for non-compliance – Accused directed to surrender – Sessions Court to reconsider bail after hearing victim [Paras 6-14].

Victimology – Participatory Rights – Scope and Evolution – Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v Ashish Mishra recognised substantive and enforceable right of victim to be heard at every crucial stage including bail – Presence of State does not substitute hearing of victim – Denial of opportunity amounts to violation of statutory and human rights of victim – Courts obligated to ensure effective participation of victim in heinous offences [Paras 11-12].

POCSO Act – Statutory Scheme – Duty to Inform and Facilitate Representation – Section 40 confers right on child’s family/guardian to engage counsel of choice – Rule 4 imposes obligation on SJPU/local police to keep victim informed of arrest, applications and bail status – Bombay High Court in Arjun Kishanrao Maige held that notice to victim in bail proceedings under POCSO is mandatory – Non-compliance vitiates bail proceedings [Paras 9-10, 13].

Cancellation of Bail – Grounds – Bail can be cancelled where granted without affording hearing to victim and in disregard of statutory mandate – Court need not examine merits of bail when order suffers from procedural illegality affecting victim’s rights – Fresh consideration directed [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – Bail order passed by Sessions Judge set aside – Bail bonds cancelled – Accused directed to surrender within seven days – Sessions Court directed to reconsider bail application afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to victim within one month.

Public Interest Litigation – Biomedical Waste Management – Enforcement of statutory framework – PIL filed highlighting indiscriminate dumping and improper handling of biomedical waste by healthcare institutions in Jharkhand – Court monitored matter since 2012 noting administrative inaction, lack of coordination and absence of treatment infrastructure – During pendency, State established multiple Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities and improved compliance mechanisms – Held: Proper biomedical waste management is integral to protection of public health and environmental safety under Article 21 – After substantial institutional improvements and operational statutory framework under BMW Rules 2016, continuing judicial supervision no longer required – Matter disposed of with comprehensive directions to ensure effective enforcement and coordination among authorities [Paras 1-6, 25-29, 41-44].

Environmental Law – Biomedical Waste – Hazard to public health and ecology – Biomedical waste contains infectious and hazardous materials capable of spreading diseases and contaminating soil, water and air – Improper disposal in public spaces or municipal waste streams poses serious risks to human life and environmental balance – Strict adherence to statutory protocols under Environment (Protection) Act and BMW Rules mandatory [Paras 5-6].

Environment (Protection) Act – Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules – Evolution of regulatory framework – Earlier Bio-Medical Waste Rules 1998 proved ineffective due to administrative lapses – Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules 2016 introduced comprehensive “cradle-to-grave” regulatory regime including segregation, barcoding, pre-treatment, tracking and centralized treatment facilities – Effective enforcement requires institutional coordination and monitoring by authorities [Paras 8-16].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Environmental protection – Right to pollution-free environment, clean air and water recognised as part of Article 21 – Improper biomedical waste management directly affects public health and ecological safety and therefore falls within constitutional protection – State authorities under constitutional obligation to ensure effective implementation of environmental laws [Paras 30-31].

Judicial Review – Continuing Mandamus – Scope – Constitutional courts may issue structural and monitoring directions where statutory authorities fail to discharge obligations affecting fundamental rights – However courts cannot assume permanent administrative control where statutory framework exists – Once institutional mechanisms become operational, primary responsibility must revert to statutory authorities [Paras 36-40, 41-43].

Environmental Governance – Institutional accountability – Court issued directions for appointment of State-level nodal officer, district-wise inventory of healthcare facilities, digital traceability through barcoding, periodic inspections, enforcement actions, capacity-building programmes and functioning of district monitoring committees – Directions intended to facilitate implementation of existing statutory framework rather than create new obligations [Paras 45(a-s)].

Public Health Administration – Biomedical waste disposal – State authorities directed to ensure that healthcare facilities obtain valid authorisation, are linked to authorised Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities, and do not mix biomedical waste with municipal waste – Regulatory compliance to be monitored through inspections, digital dashboards and grievance redressal mechanisms [Paras 45].

Decision: Public Interest Litigation disposed of – Court held that statutory framework for biomedical waste management in Jharkhand is now operational – Comprehensive coordination and enforcement directions issued to State Government, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and district authorities – Parties granted liberty to seek remedies in case of future violations.

Suo Motu PIL – Child Deaths – Electrocution – Anganwadi Centre – Illegal Live Wire Fencing – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 105 – High Court took suo motu cognisance upon newspaper reports of deaths of two minor children due to electrocution — one a 2½-year-old inside an Anganwadi Centre in Kondagaon due to a live damaged wire, and another a 6-year-old in Pendra-Marwahi district who touched illegally fenced live wires in an agricultural field — Court monitored State accountability and preventive measures — Held: State having taken departmental and penal action, disbursed compensation and issued statewide safety directions, no further judicial direction warranted — PIL disposed of [Paras 9, 10, 11].

"Unsafe Electrical Infrastructure in Anganwadi Centres — State Accountability and Systemic Preventive Action Required"

Public Interest Litigation – Child Safety – Anganwadi Centres – Electrical Safety – In the first incident, a 2½-year-old child died inside an Anganwadi Centre, Village Padeli, District Kondagaon, after coming into contact with a live wire — enquiry revealed that a damaged power supply line caused electrification of the channel gate — Anganwadi Worker and Assistant were dismissed and the Sector Supervisor placed under suspension for failure of supervision — Court noted that repeated complaints about exposed wires and unsafe fittings had gone unaddressed — State filed affidavit through Chief Secretary confirming action taken, issuance of statewide safety directions for inspection of electrical installations in all Anganwadi Centres, and disbursement of ex-gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- to the bereaved family [Paras 3, 7].

"Illegal Live-Wire Fencing of Agricultural Fields — Grave Public Danger and Criminal Liability"

Electrocution – Agricultural Fields – Illegal Electric Fencing – Section 105 BNS – In the second incident, a 6-year-old child died in Village Kargikala, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, after coming in contact with a live wire connected directly to field fencing by a landowner to protect crops from cattle — instead of a shock-based fence, a direct live current supply was connected, constituting dangerous negligence — FIR registered under Section 105 of the BNS — Power Distribution Company issued directions against illegal connections — Ex-gratia of Rs.4,00,000/- sanctioned to the mother of the deceased [Paras 4, 8].

"Electrocution Incidents — Pattern of Negligence — State Directed to Formulate Comprehensive Preventive Roadmap"

Judicial Concern – Systemic Negligence – Preventive Measures – Court observed with serious concern that electrocution incidents caused by unauthorised live connections to field fencing and by immersion of live wires in water bodies for illegal fishing are being reported with alarming frequency, resulting in loss of human lives, cattle, and wildlife — absence of warning signs and seasonal flooding adding to the danger — Court held that isolated action would not suffice and directed the State to formulate a comprehensive roadmap for prevention of electrocution deaths in government premises and agricultural fields — Court consigned the matter to records upon being informed that no fresh incident of a similar nature had come to its notice and that compensation had been disbursed [Paras 6, 9, 10, 11].

Decision: PIL disposed of — Matter consigned to records — No further directions found necessary in view of action taken by the State [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction based solely on dying declaration – Deceased sustained 85–90% burn injuries – Doctor admitted no written certificate issued regarding fitness of deceased to give statement – Evidence discloses administration of painkillers, sedatives, analgesics and IV fluids – Hospital case sheet and treatment records not produced – Material witnesses including parents and relatives turned hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that deceased was in a fit state of mind and that cruelty in connection with dowry demand was inflicted soon before death – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 17, 23, 24].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) Evidence Act – Though medical certification is rule of prudence and not mandatory, Court must be satisfied about voluntariness and mental fitness – Absence of written certification coupled with 90% burn injuries and administration of sedatives creates serious doubt – MLC (Ex.P37) mentions history as “suicidal attempt” and does not name accused – Failure to produce best evidence vitiates reliance solely on dying declaration [Paras 17–22].

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Requirement of proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death – No independent corroboration – Majority of prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Inconsistencies regarding time of admission and recording of dying declaration – Prosecution failed to collect call details of alleged phone call made by deceased – Ingredients of Section 304B IPC not established [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Best Evidence Rule – Accused presumed innocent until guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution bound to adduce best available evidence – Withholding hospital records and material inconsistencies create reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17/18.08.2012 in SC No.27/2011 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 304B IPC – District Legal Services Authority directed to award compensation to minor sons of deceased within three months.

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant challenged concurrent findings dismissing suit for permanent injunction claiming tenancy rights over municipal land – Substantial questions framed in memo began with “Because” and were improperly worded – Held: To qualify as substantial question of law, issue must be debatable, arise from pleadings, materially affect rights of parties and not be settled by binding precedent – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence – Questions framed did not satisfy test laid down in Chandrabhan v. Saraswati – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16, 25-29].

Tenancy vs Licence – Agricultural Land of Municipal Body – Plaintiff pleaded tenancy on yearly Lagan basis – No Patta or lease deed produced – Defendants pleaded that plaintiff was licencee for one Fasli year (1372 Fasli) and thereafter trespasser – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held plaintiff was licencee for limited period and subsequently trespasser – Mere Lagan receipts insufficient to establish tenancy in absence of lease document – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 18-24, 26].

Pleadings – Beyond Pleadings – Asami Rights – Plaintiff never pleaded that he was Asami – First Appellate Court observed that at best plaintiff could have been Asami for one Fasli year but such rights did not continue – Held: No evidence can be led beyond pleadings – No admission by defendant regarding conferment of Asami rights – Questions of law based on alleged admission misconceived [Paras 19, 22, 24-27].

Admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Admission – Alleged admission regarding Asami status neither clear nor unconditional – Not sufficient to decree suit on admission – Courts below rightly declined injunction [Para 27].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Interference – Supreme Court authorities including Hero Vinoth, Murthy and Rabindranath Panigrahi relied upon – No perversity, misapplication of law or ignoring of material evidence shown – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Interim order, if any, vacated – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed.