Mens Rea for Omission: A Study of State v. Pandurang

I was re-reading State v. Pandurang (2017) 10 SCC 747, and I gotta say, it's still one of the toughest cases when it comes to mens rea for omission. So, brief background: the SC held that mens rea is not necessarily required for omissible offenses, but it's still a grey area. What triggered my thoughts was the majority judgment's reliance on State v. Ram Babu (2001) 7 SCC 567, which seems to be a flawed precedent. I'm not a fan of this ruling, tbh. In my opinion, mens rea is still a fundamental requirement, not just for commission, but for omission as well. How can a person be held liable without a guilty mind? It's still something I'm struggling with.