Judicial Review – Scope in Academic Matters – Examination Answer Keys – Limited Interference – The Appellants challenged the final answer key issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for the PGT (Chemistry) screening test, contending errors in evaluation – The High Court held that judicial intervention in academic matters is permissible only in cases of manifest error or arbitrariness – Reliance placed on the Expert Committee’s report, which found no merit in the objections raised – Held: Courts should not substitute their judgment for that of subject experts unless there is clear malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality in the evaluation process [Paras 5-11, 25-26].

Expert Committee Report – Finality of Evaluations – The court examined the Expert Committee’s report, which justified the revised answer key and rejected objections raised against certain questions – Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the answer key was patently incorrect or that the Committee’s findings were arbitrary – Held: The court cannot re-evaluate academic decisions made by expert bodies unless gross errors are evident – The examination process should be accorded finality to prevent undue litigation and uncertainty in public recruitment processes [Paras 9-12, 23-24].

Precedents on Answer Key Challenges – Courts must exercise restraint – Appellants relied on past judgments where re-evaluation was permitted due to demonstrable errors – The High Court distinguished these cases, noting that the present challenge lacked clear evidence of error – Cited Supreme Court decisions affirming that courts should not interfere with academic evaluations unless the key answers are demonstrably wrong and beyond reasonable debate – Held: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish an error, which was not met in this case [Paras 12-15, 18-21].

Relief Denied – No Fundamental Error Found – The court found no compelling reason to interfere with the expert assessment or HPSC’s decision – Appeal dismissed – No costs imposed – Directed that the Expert Committee’s report be returned in a sealed cover to the HPSC [Paras 26-28].
 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Survivor – Judicial Review – Right to Life – Permission Granted – A 13-year-old minor, a victim of sexual assault, was diagnosed with a pregnancy beyond the permissible 24-week limit under the MTP Act – The petitioner (father of the minor) sought permission for termination, citing the grave risk to the child’s life due to pre-existing medical conditions (Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy) – The Medical Board opined that continuing the pregnancy posed life-threatening risks – Held: The statutory mandate under the MTP Act does not override the fundamental rights under Article 21 – Where medical opinion confirms serious health risks, courts must exercise discretion to permit termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit – Petition allowed [Paras 6-10, 34-35].

Reproductive Autonomy – Constitutional Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Bodily Integrity Upheld – The Court held that reproductive rights and the autonomy of a woman over her own body, including termination of pregnancy, are protected under Article 21 – The right to make reproductive choices is integral to personal liberty and human dignity – The legislative framework should not be interpreted to deny a person’s right to make medical decisions affecting their life and health – Held: Denying termination in such cases would be contrary to the spirit of constitutional morality and fundamental rights [Paras 12-14, 31-32].

Medical Board’s Role – Statutory Delay – Need for Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) – The Court expressed concern over unnecessary judicial intervention in cases where medical termination of pregnancy is justified under statutory and constitutional provisions – Held: Delays in referring cases to the Medical Board cause unnecessary mental and physical distress to victims – Directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline the process, ensuring that cases are promptly evaluated by the Medical Board without requiring court intervention unless legally necessary [Paras 22-25, 33-36].
 

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Joint Proceedings – Section 23 of JJ Act – Trial of Child in Conflict with Law Separately – The petitioner, a child in conflict with law (CCL), challenged the order permitting his joint trial with an adult co-accused before the Children’s Court – The prosecution argued that once a child is assessed for trial "as an adult," he may be tried with an adult accused – Held: The phrase “as an adult” does not mean “with an adult” – Section 23 explicitly prohibits joint proceedings of a CCL and an adult accused – The trial court’s interpretation is erroneous and contrary to the plain language of the statute – The joint proceedings are set aside, and the petitioner’s trial is to be conducted separately [Paras 58-66].

Juvenile Justice – Beneficial Legislation – Principle of Child-Friendly Justice – The JJ Act is a welfare-oriented legislation aimed at rehabilitation rather than retribution – The legislative intent mandates separate proceedings for children, even if they are tried as adults – Courts must interpret the statute in a manner that upholds the rights and protections afforded to juveniles [Paras 45, 64-65].

Statutory Interpretation – Non-obstante Clause – Mandatory Nature of Section 23 of JJ Act – Section 23 operates as a non-obstante clause overriding Cr.P.C. provisions permitting joint trials – The use of the word “shall” indicates a mandatory prohibition against joint proceedings of a CCL and an adult – Any interpretation allowing joint proceedings renders the statutory prohibition under Section 23 meaningless and is impermissible [Paras 50-53].

Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Trial as an Adult – A child who undergoes a preliminary assessment under Section 15 and is sent for trial as an adult does not cease to be a “child” – The assessment only determines the nature of trial but does not remove protections afforded under the JJ Act – Therefore, such a child cannot be tried alongside an adult accused [Paras 48-49].

Decision: The joint trial of the petitioner with the adult co-accused is quashed – The petitioner’s trial shall proceed separately in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act.
 

Income Tax – Disallowance Under Section 40A(3) – Whether Justified – The Tribunal held that no separate addition was made under Section 40A(3) and deleted the disallowance of ₹1,08,34,15,088—Revenue challenged this deletion—Held: Assessing Officer had explicitly mentioned the disallowance and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)—Tribunal’s reasoning was erroneous—Remanded for reconsideration [Paras 4-7].

Search and Seizure – Validity of Proceedings Under Section 153C – The respondent-assessee challenged the invocation of Section 153C, arguing that no incriminating material was found in search proceedings—Held: Tribunal rightly upheld the validity of proceedings under Section 153C—Assessee’s objections dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Maintainability of Cross-Objections Under Section 260A – Whether Permissible – The respondent filed cross-objections challenging findings on Section 153C—Revenue argued that Section 260A does not provide for cross-objections—Held: Section 260A does not explicitly allow cross-objections, and Order XLI Rule 22 CPC cannot be imported—Cross-objections dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 11-15].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Section 260A – The Court relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions in interpreting the scope of appeals under Section 260A—Held: A cross-objection is akin to an appeal and must be statutorily permitted—Income-tax appeals under Section 260A cannot entertain cross-objections [Paras 16-20].

Final Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Disallowance under Section 40A(3) remanded for reconsideration—Cross-objections dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 21-23].
 

Taxation Law - Tax Evasion – Undervaluation of Goods – Section 129 of the IGST/CGST Act – Goods in transit can be seized if transported in contravention of the Act or Rules – The petitioners contended that their goods were lawfully transported with valid tax invoices and without an e-way bill, as the value was below ₹50,000 – The Court held that undervaluation of goods with intent to evade tax amounts to a violation of the GST Act – Authorities are empowered to detain and seize goods under Section 129 – Held: The seizure was justified as the documents were found to be manipulated and the petitioners failed to prove the genuine movement of goods from Assam/West Bengal to Delhi [Paras 14-17, 26-28].

Burden of Proof – Requirement to Prove Genuine Movement of Goods – The petitioners failed to provide toll receipts, vehicle details, or other supporting evidence establishing that the goods originated from Assam/West Bengal – The Court emphasized that under GST law, the burden of proof lies on the dealer to demonstrate the legitimacy of the transaction – Held: Failure to establish actual movement of goods rendered the accompanying tax invoices unreliable, justifying detention and penalty [Paras 22-26].

E-Way Bill Exemption – Misuse to Evade Tax – Rule 138 of CGST Rules – The petitioners claimed that since the value of goods was below ₹50,000, an e-way bill was not required – The Court found that the deliberate undervaluation of goods to avoid generating an e-way bill was a fraudulent practice – Held: The exemption under Rule 138 cannot be misused to suppress the true value of goods and evade tax obligations [Paras 37-39].

Reliability of Driver’s Statement – Importance of Initial Interrogation – The truck driver’s statement indicated that the goods were loaded from Kanpur instead of Assam/West Bengal, contradicting the accompanying documents – The Court held that initial statements given at the time of detention carry greater evidentiary value – Held: The driver’s statement reinforced the finding that the goods were falsely documented as originating from Assam/West Bengal, supporting the tax authority’s action [Paras 29-31].

Judicial Precedents – Seizure Valid for Undervaluation – The Court relied on previous rulings that upheld seizure of goods for undervaluation when done with an intent to evade tax – It noted that misdeclaring value to avoid tax obligations constitutes a violation of GST laws – Held: The present case aligned with past judgments where tax authorities were justified in detaining goods on suspicion of tax evasion through undervaluation [Paras 42-45].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – The Court found no merit in the petitions challenging the seizure orders. Seizure and penalty upheld – The Court confirmed that the authorities were justified in seizing the goods and imposing penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act. Deliberate undervaluation amounts to tax evasion – The Court ruled that misrepresenting the value of goods to circumvent e-way bill requirements constitutes an attempt to evade tax. Failure to establish genuine movement – The petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the actual transportation of goods from Assam/West Bengal, rendering their claims untenable.

Taxation Law – Deemed Dealer under MVAT Act – Whether Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund is Liable – The Appellant, a trust set up by the Central Government to recover non-performing assets of IDBI, challenged its classification as a deemed dealer under the MVAT Act – The Tribunal upheld the determination order, ruling that the Appellant falls within the definition of a "dealer" under Section 2(8) – Held: The Explanation to Section 2(8) deems certain entities as dealers, overriding the requirement of carrying on business – As the Appellant was constituted by the Central Government for recovery and sale of stressed assets, it falls within the category of a deemed dealer – Tax liability confirmed [Paras 19-28].

Article 285 – Immunity of Union Property from State Taxation – Whether Applicable – The Appellant argued that it was exempt from taxation under Article 285 as it was acting as an instrumentality of the Central Government – Held: While Article 285 prohibits taxation of Union property, the trust itself, though government-created, engages in commercial transactions, making it subject to state taxation – Exemption not applicable [Paras 11-13].

Prospective Effect of Determination Order – Discretionary Power under Section 56(2) – The Appellant contended that it was under a bona fide impression that it was not liable for tax and had not collected tax from purchasers – Sought relief through prospective effect to avoid hardship – Held: Section 56(2) allows for prospective application of orders, but in this case, the Tribunal found no justification for relief – The Appellant, being a financial institution dealing in sales, was expected to be aware of tax liabilities – Denial of prospective effect upheld [Paras 16-18].

Nature of Transactions – Sale of Movable vs. Immovable Property – The Appellant claimed that it only sold immovable properties and thus should not be liable under MVAT – The Tribunal ruled that whether an asset is movable or immovable is to be determined at the field level – Held: Movable property sold in the course of stressed asset recovery is subject to VAT – The Appellant’s sale transactions included movable goods, making them taxable under MVAT [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Tribunal’s orders upholding the tax liability and denying prospective effect confirmed – The Appellant held liable for VAT on transactions of movable property sales [Paras 29-32].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Survivor Beyond 24 Weeks – Termination Allowed – Risk to Life Established – Petitioner, father of 13-year-old minor rape survivor suffering from Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, sought termination beyond statutory limit – Medical Board concluded continuation of pregnancy posed life-threatening risks – Court held pregnancy termination legally permissible under Sections 3(2B) and 5 of MTP Act – Relief granted [Paras 1–10, 34–35].

Right to Bodily Autonomy – Constitutional Protection under Article 21 – Reproductive Choice Recognized – Court reaffirmed that reproductive autonomy is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – Emphasized importance of decisional autonomy, dignity, and privacy, particularly in cases of rape and disability – Held: Medical termination is a fundamental right in such circumstances [Paras 12–16].

Judicial Oversight – Procedural Delay Criticized – SOP Ordered – Court observed that hospitals unnecessarily required judicial orders despite statutory clarity – Directed State to formulate and implement a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide medical practitioners in similar cases and avoid future delay – Six-month timeframe fixed [Paras 20–24, 33, 36].

Minor Victim – Parental Consent Sufficient – Protection of Interests – Recognized that in the case of minors, guardians have the legal and moral responsibility to make decisions in their best interests – Mental anguish and physical burden of childbirth at age 13 held unacceptable – Court found guardians acting in child's best interest [Paras 13, 18–19].

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Medical termination of pregnancy permitted and to be carried out without delay – State directed to formulate a comprehensive SOP within six months to guide hospitals and prevent undue judicial interventions in future cases – Interim orders, if any, vacated [Paras 34–37].

BSF Service – Compulsory Retirement – Valid Exercise of Power – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a constable in BSF, was compulsorily retired under Rule 26 of the BSF Rules for unsuitability due to repeated acts of indiscipline – The Court held that Rule 26 allows retirement on unsuitability if the competent authority is satisfied after issuing a show-cause notice – The Court found that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity, and the decision was based on his overall conduct, including six punishments during service and failure to reform despite warnings – Compulsory retirement upheld [Paras 7-20]. 
 
Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Subjective Satisfaction of Competent Authority – Not Interfered – The Court reiterated that where rules permit action based on the satisfaction of the authority, such satisfaction is conclusive unless perverse, arbitrary, or mala fide – The Court found no perversity or arbitrariness in the formation of opinion by the respondents – Rule 26 and procedural safeguards were duly followed [Paras 15-20]. 
 
Double Jeopardy – Inapplicability – Retirement on Unsuitability Is Not Punishment – The petitioner contended that retirement after prior punishments amounted to double jeopardy – The Court held that retirement under Rule 26 is an administrative action based on cumulative unsuitability and not a second punishment – Principle of double jeopardy does not apply [Para 14]. 
 
Alternative Remedy – Availability Not a Bar after Delay – Writ Maintainable – Although Rule 28-A provides for an internal remedy, the Court decided to hear the petition on merits given the passage of 18 years – Premature rejection on technical grounds avoided [Para 9]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner was rightly retired after considering past conduct, repeated indiscipline, and disregard of warnings – No merit found in the challenge – Writ petition dismissed [Para 20]. 
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Proclaimed Person – Legality of Declaration – Whether Proper Procedure Was Followed – The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act—Petitioner argued that the proclamation was issued without adhering to Section 82 CrPC—Held: Proclamation must be issued only after ensuring that summons and bailable warrants have failed—In the present case, no prior steps were taken before issuing the proclamation—Declaration of proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed [Paras 6-10].

Effect of Section 195 CrPC – Whether FIR Under Section 174-A IPC Can Be Registered – The FIR against the petitioner was registered solely based on the court's proclamation order—Held: Under Section 195 CrPC, offences under Section 174-A IPC require a written complaint by the court concerned—Direct FIR by the police is not permissible—Impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 11-14].

Constitutional Safeguards – Violation of Personal Liberty – Whether Action Was Arbitrary – Petitioner contended that she was not given an opportunity to appear before the court before being declared a proclaimed person—Held: Due process under Article 21 requires fair procedure—Failure to serve summons and warrants before proclamation violates fundamental rights—Quashing of proceedings justified [Paras 15-17].

Final Decision – Petition allowed – Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person set aside—FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed—Directions issued to trial courts to ensure strict compliance with Section 82 CrPC before issuing proclamation orders [Paras 18-20].