Jurisdiction – The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of termination orders based on suppression of material facts regarding criminal conviction. The court considers the validity of the termination and its legal implications.

Facts – The petitioner, a teacher, faced a criminal case resulting in conviction for IPC offences. He suppressed this information from the department, obtained extraordinary leaves under false pretexts, and later falsely claimed acquittal in his appeal against conviction. After departmental proceedings were dropped, his voluntary retirement was accepted, but later withdrawn due to his fraudulent conduct, leading to the termination order based on Rule 19 of the CCA Rules 1958.

Legal Principles – Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Conduct – The court examines the legal principles related to misrepresentation and fraudulent conduct in obtaining employment. It emphasizes that fraudulent employment obtained through misrepresentation can be treated as voidable. Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and dishonesty and suppression of material facts affect trustworthiness. An employee with fraudulent conduct cannot claim a right to continue in service.

Employer’s Discretion – Credibility and Trustworthiness – The court acknowledges the employer’s discretion in assessing the credibility and trustworthiness of employees. It states that an employee’s conduct affecting trust can be grounds for termination, especially in uniformed service where higher integrity is expected and fraudulent conduct is not tolerated.

Decision – Termination Justified – The court concludes that the petitioner’s suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and fraudulent conduct regarding his criminal conviction warranted termination. As a result, the petitioner’s claim to continue in service is denied, and the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the termination order. (Para 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Civil Contempt - Principles governing - Allegation of wilful disobedience of court order - Requirement to establish disobedience of court order and wilfulness - Liberal approach to be taken in adjudicating civil contempt cases - Clear violation of court order must be shown - Disobedience must be wilful and intentional - Casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts not sufficient to establish contempt - Contempt proceedings should not be invoked without clear case of wilful disobedience - Compliance with court orders necessary for maintenance of effective legal system - Disobedience of court's order strikes at the root of the rule of law - Powers of contempt should be exercised cautiously and when necessary for maintenance of justice - Genuine inability to comply with court order may not be considered contemptuous. (Para 29-33)

Wilful disobedience of court order - Intentional disobedience required to establish contempt - Disobedience must be deliberate or contumacious - Unintentional or accidental disobedience not sufficient to establish contempt - Disobedience resulting from misapprehension of legal position and good faith without intention to defy court's order may not be considered contemptuous - Disobedience must involve degree of fault or misconduct to hold one guilty of contempt - Casual or unintentional acts of disobedience may amount to contempt in theory only and not warrant punishment. (Para 32, 34-35)

Maintenance of business - Compliance with court orders - Grant of credit facilities and creation of charge on subject properties - Permissible actions by respondents to protect and expand business - Actions taken in entrepreneurial capacity and not in personal capacity as legal representatives - No intentional or wilful disobedience of court order established - Subsequent orders and developments substantiate respondents' objections - Lack of merit in petitioner's claim for contempt proceedings. (Para 42-45, 48)

Adjudication of contempt proceedings - Consideration of entire case, subsequent developments, and interpretations of court orders - Court not limited to initial order while adjudicating contempt - Peculiar advancements in the case to be taken into account - Observations made in the judgment limited to the instant contempt proceedings and not indicative of opinions on merits of other pending cases between parties. (Para 47)

Dismissal of petition - Lack of wilful disobedience established - Contempt proceedings not initiated against respondents - Observations not to be considered as opinions on merits of other cases - Judgment to be uploaded on the website. (Para 49-52)

Village Common Lands - Jurisdiction to Decide Title Suits – The amendment of Section 13-A by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1999 confers jurisdiction to decide original title suits solely on the Collector – Held, orders passed by the Assistant Collector deciding such title suits are without jurisdiction and thus quashed – Assistant Collector’s decision dated 24.09.2016 is a nullity. [Paras 1-22]

Powers of Assistant Collector and Collector – Analysis – Post-amendment, Assistant Collectors retain jurisdiction to decide questions of title only within eviction proceedings under Section 7, not in independent title suits – Orders by Assistant Collectors outside this scope are invalid. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Nullity of Orders Beyond Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that decisions made by an authority without proper jurisdiction are null and void – Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision as per the statutory framework. [Paras 36-38]

Consensual sexual relationships involving minors - Application of the POCSO Act - Whether consensual sexual intercourse between a minor girl and an adult male should be considered rape under the POCSO Act solely based on the age of the girl. [Para 15]

Understanding the concept of consent - The essence of consent lies in the voluntary agreement communicated through words, gestures, or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication - Lack of physical resistance does not imply consent. [Para 15]

Adolescence as a phase of transition and sexual development - Adolescence is a period of significant sexual development, curiosity, and exploration - Access to sexual information through the internet and other sources increases vulnerability and curiosity among adolescents. [Para 16]

Concerns about strict application of the POCSO Act - Various High Courts raise concerns about the strict application of the POCSO Act in consensual relationships between teenagers - Differentiating cases of sexual exploitation from cases of teenagers involved in romantic relationships. [Para 19]

Reconsidering the age criteria for consent - Comparison of the age of consent in different countries - Need to reconsider the age criteria for consent in light of ground realities and adolescents' ability to make informed decisions. [Para 18]

Balancing protection and autonomy - Striking a balance between protecting vulnerable minors and allowing adolescents to exercise their autonomy and make decisions appropriate to their age and maturity. [Para 26]

Call for a nuanced approach - Advocating for a more nuanced approach to consensual sexual relationships involving minors - Suggesting that the issue should be considered by the Parliament. [Para 27]

Setting aside the conviction - Conviction of the appellant set aside - Consensual sexual acts between a minor girl and an adult male not automatically classified as rape under the POCSO Act - Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released. [Para 29]

Kerala Building Tax Act – Exemption for buildings used principally for religious, charitable, or educational purposes – Interpretation of the phrase “charitable purpose” in relation to medical relief – Whether free medical relief is the only form of medical relief that qualifies as a charitable purpose – Previous judgments in SH Medical Centre Hospital v. State of Kerala and Unity Hospital – Scope and ambit of exemption provision – Liberal interpretation of beneficial provisions – Compliance with the requirement of free medical relief for exemption – Appellant’s building not primarily used for providing free medical relief – Appellant’s claim for exemption based on providing medical relief at concessional rates – Consideration of income-expense statement of appellant’s institution – Figures showing a nominal amount expended for charitable purposes – Appellant’s contention as a charitable institution under the Income Tax Act – Full Bench decision in Mother Superior Adoration Convent affirming Unity Hospital – High Court’s deference to its previous judgments and principles of interpretation – Strict construction of exemption provision at entry stage – Inclusive definition of “charitable purpose” and use of the term “includes” – No lesser form of medical relief than “free” medical relief qualifies as charitable purpose – Dilution of the prescription regarding medical relief not warranted – Interpretation of the term “include” as a word of limitation and exhaustion – Extent of free medical relief provided by the appellant insufficient for a liberal interpretation – Appellant’s building does not qualify for exemption – Writ appeal dismissed. (Para 1-16)

Arbitration - Appointment procedure - Broad-based panel - Impartiality and independence - Counterbalancing of power - Scope of appointment procedure in government contracts - Principles laid down in Voestalpine case - Panel should include engineers from the private sector, legal professionals, and individuals from other fields - Need to create a healthy arbitration environment - Panel must be broad-based and instill confidence in parties - Restrictive panels not in conformance with principles - Counterbalancing achieved when both parties nominate arbitrators - Exclusive appointment power may impinge upon party autonomy - Appointment procedure lacking counterbalancing - Appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitral Tribunal - Nominated arbitrators and presiding arbitrator to be appointed - Parties free to raise claims before the Arbitral Tribunal - Merits of substantive disputes left open. [Para 24-48]

Regular Bail - Grant of - Petitioner under Sections 21/27-A of the NDPS Act - Allegations of possession of 6 grams of smack - Previous instances of petitioner absconding from trial proceedings - Bail granted and subsequently breached - Petitioner's application for bail rejected by Trial Court - Petitioner in custody for a significant period - No other pending case under NDPS Act against petitioner - Bail granted with conditions. (Para 4)

Conditions for Bail - Additional conditions imposed to prevent misuse - Petitioner bound by conditions including not misusing the granted liberty, not tampering with evidence, not absenting himself from trial, not committing similar offenses, depositing passport with trial Court, providing cellphone number to police authorities, and not delaying the trial - Breach of conditions may result in cancellation of bail. (Para 5)

Writ Petition (Criminal) – Custody of autistic ward – Invocation of parens patriae doctrine – Petitioner, mother of an autistic ward, sought custody after the demise of her husband who was appointed as the guardian under the National Trust Act – Provisions of the Act – Analysis of Sections 10 and 14 – Court’s discretion to act as parens patriae in exceptional cases – Consideration of the ward’s welfare – Petitioner’s capability and willingness to care for the ward – Invocation of parens patriae doctrine – Court directing District Administration to hand over custody to the petitioner for the welfare of the ward.(Para No.2, 5, 7, 8, 9)

Criminal Bail Application – Grant of Bail – Petitioner denied bail by trial Court – Nature of charges under various sections including IPC, NDPS Act, and Arms Act – Prosecution alleging involvement in illegal activities – Co-accused already granted bail – Prolonged preventive custody – Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Balance between individual liberty and the interest of justice – Held, petitioner's release on bail justified in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner's life and career at stake – Bail granted subject to conditions – Passport surrender ordered. [Para 10, 12]

Personal Liberty – Importance of individual liberty in bail decisions – Purpose of bail to maintain freedom until guilt or innocence determined – Allegations a matter of trial – Prolonged preventive custody – Co-accused already granted bail – Grant of bail in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing – Balance between individual liberty and the interest of justice. [Para 8, 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest – Considerations for granting bail – Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Importance of individual liberty – Co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing. [Para 7, 10]

Bail Granted – Nature of charges, evidence, and co-accused's bail considered – Prolonged preventive custody unjustified – Bail granted subject to conditions – Passport surrender ordered – Observations and submissions limited to bail hearing. [Para 13, 14]