Challenge to High Court’s directions in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005 – Appellants challenge validity of High Court’s directions issued superseding CAT’s order – Respondent seeking promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme – Original application before CAT disposed with direction to clarify promotion guidelines – Appellants aggrieved by High Court’s judgment, contest its validity. [Para 1-2]

Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 – Rule 4(b) challenged as ultra vires – Respondent’s pleading lacks grounds to challenge rule’s validity – High Court’s declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires not justified – Proper pleading and relief needed to challenge rule’s validity. [Para 8-9]

Challenge to denial of promotion – Rule 4(b)’s validity set aside – Denial of promotion based on rule’s validity – Respondent’s grievance about promotion denial doesn’t hold – No unjustified denial of promotion for respondent – Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme in place – Respondent’s promotion during writ petition and superannuation rendered issue moot – Validity of promotion of juniors also not relevant. [Para 10-11]

Intervenors impleaded – Allowed to support High Court’s order – Lack of challenge and appropriate pleading – Impleaded parties’ grounds not considered – Parties have liberty to pursue their claims through appropriate proceedings – No express view on validity of Rules. [Para 12]

Appeal allowed – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]

Constitutional Validity – Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16, which legitimizes children born from void and voidable marriages, stating that it serves the purpose of social justice and protects the rights of innocent parties. [Para 1-10]

Legitimacy and Property Rights – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Clarification on the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in relation to property rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Children born from such marriages are legitimate but have property rights only with respect to their parents and not any other person. [Para 54(iii)]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonization of Laws – The Court emphasized the need to harmonize the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly in relation to the legitimacy and property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. [Para 54(x)]

Constitutional Principles – Individual Dignity – The Court highlighted that the interpretation of laws should be guided by the constitutional principle of individual dignity. While the relationship between parents may not be sanctioned by law, the birth of a child in such a relationship must be viewed independently. [Para 52(xi)]

Gender Equality – Hindu Undivided Family – The Court noted that amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, have been made to facilitate gender equality within the institution of Hindu Undivided Family, particularly by recognizing the rights of daughters as coparceners. [Para 54(v)]

Judicial Precedents – Overruling – The Court overruled previous narrow interpretations of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stating that such interpretations were not in line with the legislative intent or constitutional principles. [Para 52(i)]

Coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family – The Court clarified that the concept of a coparcener postulates the acquisition of an interest by birth. Children born from void or voidable marriages, although legitimate, do not automatically become coparceners in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family. [Para 50]

Historical Context – Evolution of Hindu Law – The Court provided a detailed historical context, tracing the evolution of Hindu law and how it has adapted to changing social norms, particularly with respect to legitimacy and property rights. [Para 51]

Decision and Directions – The Court concluded by answering the reference, affirming the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and clarifying the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The Court directed that the individual cases be listed before a two-Judge Bench for disposal in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. It also directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and subordinate courts for quick disposal of pending cases involving the issues decided. The Court further emphasized the need for judicial education on the harmonization of laws and constitutional principles, and called for immediate action to be taken to ensure the rights of children born from void or voidable marriages are protected. [Para 54-60]

Special Leave to Appeal – False Statement by Counsel  Counsel for the petitioner alleged that the High Court’s reasoned order was not uploaded, prompting the Supreme Court to call for a status report from the Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay. The statement was subsequently found to be false.

High Court Procedures – Status Report  The Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay clarified that the reasoned order was digitally signed and uploaded on time, contrary to the counsel’s statement.

Constitutional Jurisdiction – Article 136  The Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions due to the false statement made by the petitioner’s counsel.

Misrepresentation – Counsel’s Misconduct  The Court expressed its discontent towards the petitioner’s counsel for providing a false statement, which required the Court to unnecessarily summon a status report from the Registrar General.

Applications – Disposed Of   All pending applications related to the case were dismissed.

Service Termination - Appellant’s challenge against termination of services as temporary Collection Peon – Petitioner’s promotion based on interim order after termination – Court’s analysis of validity of continued service and promotion – Division Bench’s conclusion upheld. [Paras 1-12]

Employment Law - Termination of Services - Validity - Petitioner appointed as temporary Collection Peon – Services terminated with notice and salary – Petitioner’s challenge in writ petition dismissed – Continued functioning under interim order – Subsequent promotion as Collection Amin – Challenge to promotion based on termination – Court’s assessment of petitioner’s status – Finality of termination order – Interim order’s impact on promotion – Promotion invalidated after Special Leave Petition dismissal. [Paras 4-12]

Writ Jurisdiction - Validity of Promotion - Petitioner’s writ petition allowed by Single Judge – Promotion upheld – Division Bench allowing State’s appeal – Court’s analysis of petitioner’s service status – Interim order’s effect on promotion – Promotion’s validity determined by termination order’s finality – Promotion invalidated upon dismissal of Special Leave Petition. [Paras 6-12]

Judicial Review - Legality of Judgment - Division Bench allowing State’s appeal – High Court’s assessment of petitioner’s service continuity – Finality of termination order – Analysis of promotion based on interim order – Promotion invalidated after Special Leave Petition dismissal – Division Bench’s conclusion upheld – No merit in Special Leave Petition. [Paras 8-12]

Salary Recovery - Period of Work - Respondents restrained from initiating salary recovery for period of actual work – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Appellant not liable for salary repayment during employment period. [Para 12]

Legal Representation – Absence of Appellant’s Advocate – The Division Bench appointed an advocate to represent appellant Niranjan Das but failed to give adequate time for preparation. Advocacy impaired due to lack of time to study the case, indicating procedural impropriety. [Para 4, 6-7]

Conviction – Section 302 of IPC – Appellant Niranjan Das convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC but not under Section 34 for common intention, rendering the advocate’s arguments regarding common intention moot. [Para 3, 6]

Appeal Process – Hasty Decision – High Court disposed of the appeal on the same day the advocate was appointed for the appellant, violating the principle of fair representation and justice. [Para 7-8]

Remand – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment concerning Niranjan Das and remanded the case for fresh consideration. [Para 9]

Bail – Lengthy Incarceration – Appellant has been in jail for over eight years; directed to be enlarged on bail on terms to be decided by the Trial Court. [Para 11-13]

Case Management – Future Proceedings – Directions given for the appearance of appointed advocates for both parties for the next hearing date. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeals – Appeals allowed partly; case record to be sent back to the High Court for further proceedings. [Para 15-16]

Criminal Appeal – Recall of Witness – Appellant sought recall for further examination as a witness in the trial – High Court rejected the application – Appeal filed in Supreme Court. [Para 3-4]

Evidence – Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL) Report – Appellant’s initial deposition recorded before CFSL report could be examined – CFSL expert’s testimony lacked comparison between stolen data and data found on accused’s hard disk. [Para 4-5]

Legal Procedure – Section 311, CrPC – Court’s discretionary power to recall or re-examine any person already examined – Emphasis on judicial exercise of this power to prevent failure of justice. [Para 9-11]

Delay – Timing of Application – Court finds that delay should be reckoned from the date the cause of action arose, not from the date of the first lodging of the complaint. [Para 6, 13]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders set aside – Appellant’s application for recall under Section 311, CrPC granted – Trial to conclude within 9 months from the date of this judgment. [Para 14]

Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation of High Court Order – State of Haryana appeals against anticipatory bail granted to the respondent, Dharamraj, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Respondent declared a proclaimed offender and accused under various sections of IPC – Supreme Court finds High Court's grant of anticipatory bail improper. [Para 2-3, 13]

Proclaimed Offender – Legal Implications – Respondent declared a proclaimed offender prior to seeking anticipatory bail – Supreme Court emphasizes that a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail, citing precedents like Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma. [Para 16, 17]

Judicial Discretion – Factors for Granting Bail – Court refers to various precedents outlining factors to consider while granting bail, including nature of the offence, severity of punishment, and likelihood of the accused absconding – Notes that each case turns on its own facts and merits. [Para 7-12]

High Court's Reasoning – Critique – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's reasoning for granting anticipatory bail, including overlooking the respondent's status as a proclaimed offender and misapplication of the Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar precedent. [Para 14-16]

Order – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent – Directs the respondent to surrender before the Court within four weeks and seek regular bail, to be considered on its own merits. [Para 17-18]

Criminal Appeal – Leave Granted – Appeals arise from orders of the High Court in an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC – Appellant challenges High Court’s decisions to allow amendment of application and to set aside prior orders by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). [Para 1-3]

Factual Background – Appellant alleges attack on his family by respondents, leading to serious injuries – Respondents initially discharged by CJM but subsequently summoned after appellant’s Protest Petition – Appellant challenges High Court’s order allowing amendment of respondent’s Section 482 application and setting aside CJM’s orders. [Para 4-7]

High Court’s Observations – High Court finds Magistrate’s decision to treat the protest petition as a complaint to be erroneous – Points out absence of certain procedural compliances by the Magistrate. [Para 8]

Supreme Court’s Opinion – Supreme Court finds High Court’s observations erroneous – Reiterates Magistrate’s options upon receipt of a police report under Section 173 CrPC, including the discretion to proceed on a Protest Petition. [Para 9-11]

Discretionary Orders of CJM – Supreme Court asserts CJM was within his legal right to reject the Final Report and proceed with the Protest Petition – High Court should not have interfered with CJM’s orders after such a long gap, especially given the proper application of law by the CJM. [Para 12]

Decision – High Court’s erroneous orders quashed – Case to proceed at the level of CJM in accordance with law. [Para 13]

Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus Proceeding – The appellant approached the court alleging illegal detention of his wife, Mathithra, by her family – The Court, after facilitating the recording of Mathithra's statement, found that she wishes to reside with the appellant of her own free will – Respondents directed to ensure her joining with the appellant. [Para 1-5]

Hindu Marriage Act, Section 7A – Court notes the erroneous view of the High Court regarding the necessity of public solemnization for marriages under Section 7A – Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not necessitate public declaration and the court found that imposing such a condition could be violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 6-8]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life under Article 21 – Court emphasized that the right to exercise free choice in matters of marriage is an intrinsic part of the right to life – High Court's view in narrowing the scope of Section 7A was deemed as inconsistent with Article 21. [Para 8]

Decision – High Court's view set aside – Respondents directed to ensure that Mathithra joins the appellant – Court clarifies the wide import of Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterates that the need for public declaration is not a mandate under the said section. [Para 4, 8]