High Courts Address Remission, Quashing Pleas, and Paternity Tests in a Week of Landmark Rulings

Bengaluru/Chennai: High Courts across southern India delivered a series of significant judgments this past week, clarifying crucial legal principles on convict remission, the maintainability of successive quashing petitions, and the sanctity of marriage in paternity disputes. The Karnataka and Madras High Courts tackled a diverse range of issues, from the scope of judicial review in public infrastructure projects to the constitutional powers of the Governor, setting important precedents for legal practitioners nationwide.

Karnataka High Court: Navigating Judicial Boundaries and Procedural Bars

The Karnataka High Court issued several key rulings that reinforce the distinct roles of the judiciary and the executive, while also tightening procedural loopholes in criminal law.

Judicial Restraint in Executive Policy

In a notable decision affirming the principle of separation of powers, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed a plea concerning the placement of a metro station. In C Naveen Kumar & Other v. Union of India & Others , residents sought a directive for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to construct a station at Chikkajala Village.

The Bench firmly declined to intervene, stating, “The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.” This judgment underscores the judiciary's reluctance to step into the domain of urban planning and executive policymaking, which involves complex technical and logistical considerations best left to specialized bodies.

Clarity on Convict Remission

In a significant ruling for prison jurisprudence, the High Court in Deepa Angadi v. State of Karnataka & Others held that a convict is entitled to seek remission even if their sentence exceeds 20 years, provided the sentencing order does not explicitly bar premature release. The court clarified that Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 does not create an embargo against granting remission simply because a fixed-term sentence of over two decades has been imposed. This decision reaffirms that remission is a statutory right available to convicts unless expressly excluded by a judicial order, providing crucial clarity on the interpretation of state prison manuals.

Second Quashing Petitions Disallowed Without New Circumstances

Justice M Nagaprasanna delivered a stern message against the misuse of judicial process in G Satyanarayana Varma v. State of Karnataka & Others . The court held that a second petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to quash proceedings is not maintainable unless founded on a "demonstrable change in circumstance."

The court emphasized that grounds available during the first plea cannot be "exhumed" to support a subsequent one. Justice Nagaprasanna observed, "Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.” This ruling is a critical check on vexatious litigation and reinforces the principle of finality in criminal proceedings.

Sanctity of Marriage and DNA Tests

The court also weighed in on a sensitive family law issue in Hareesh v. A S Umesh & Others . It ruled that compelling a DNA test to determine a child's paternity without first proving non-access between the parents, as required by Section 112 of the Evidence Act, violates the sanctity of marriage and the fundamental right to privacy. The court noted that the presumption under Section 112 is a cornerstone of public morality and societal peace, and a DNA test should be the last resort, not a routine procedure.

Other key decisions from the Karnataka High Court included quashing the suspension of a Legislative Council official pending a full inquiry ( K J Jaljakshi v. The Honourable Chairman ) and upholding a Lokayukta enquiry against an Assistant Public Prosecutor for alleged malpractices that occurred prior to his appointment ( Dadapeer Bhanuvalli v. State of Karnataka & Others ).

Madras High Court: Constitutional Values and Institutional Probes

The Madras High Court was equally active, delivering judgments with far-reaching social and constitutional implications, including a significant referral on the Governor's powers.

A Novel Bail Condition: Writing the Preamble

In a creative approach to justice, the court in Raja Mathan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu granted anticipatory bail to Hindu Munnani workers in a hate speech case on the condition that they write the Preamble to the Constitution and articles on fundamental duties ten times. Justice M. Jothiraman imposed the condition to help the accused "understand the object and constitutional values enumerated in the Constitution," highlighting a judicial trend towards using bail conditions as a tool for reform and education.

Governor's Discretion on Remission Referred to Larger Bench

Perhaps the most constitutionally significant development was the referral in Eswaran and others v. The State . A bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan referred a crucial question to a larger bench: "whether the governor is bound by the decision of the Council of Ministers in matters pertaining to remission and premature release." Citing conflicting opinions from coordinate benches, the court sought an authoritative ruling on the circumstances under which the Governor can exercise discretion and differ from the state cabinet's advice, a matter with profound implications for federalism and the rights of convicts.

Commission to Probe Police Violence Against Lawyers

Responding to serious allegations of police brutality, the court in S. Vijay v. The Commissioner of Police constituted a one-man commission headed by retired judge Justice V Parthiban. The commission will investigate claims of police violence against lawyers and law students who were detained during a protest. This move signals the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for alleged excesses by law enforcement.

No Statutory Bar on Multiple Bar Associations

In a victory for legal professionals, the court in Women Lawyers Association of Nilgiris v. The Secretary and others directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to reconsider an application for recognition from a women lawyers' association. The bench held that the Bar Council's stance of recognizing only one association per district was "misconceived" and contrary to the Advocates' Welfare Fund Rules. This ruling champions the freedom of association and could pave the way for the formation of more specialized legal bodies across the state.

The court also remarked on the need for a mindset change to eradicate caste discrimination in the use of public resources ( Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamilnadu ) and clarified that the NCLT cannot reject a proposed Interim Resolution Professional under the IBC without pending disciplinary proceedings ( K.J. Vinod v. Registrar, NCLT & Anr. ).

Collectively, these rulings from the Karnataka and Madras High Courts reflect a judiciary actively engaged in defining its own boundaries, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring procedural integrity across civil, criminal, and constitutional law.