Income Tax Law – Reassessment Notice – Assumption of Jurisdiction Beyond Four Years – Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2011-12 was challenged by the petitioner (Discovery Communications India), as the original assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3) – Notice issued after the four-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, alleging escapement of income without new tangible material and based on the previous assessment record from AY 2012-13 – Held: Without failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening the assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the reassessment notice invalid [Paras 1, 2, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30].

Reassessment Beyond Four Years – Condition for Failure to Disclose – The court observed that reopening under Section 147 beyond the four-year period requires proof of a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, which was absent in this case – The notice under Section 148 did not specify any undisclosed facts or evidence of nondisclosure by the petitioner – The reassessment was initiated solely based on the same material available during the original assessment [Paras 16, 17, 24, 26].

Change of Opinion – Invalid Ground for Reopening – The court held that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) is not permissible – When an assessment order is completed under Section 143(3), the AO cannot reopen it merely because of a shift in opinion on previously verified claims – Citing judgments in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd., the court reiterated that the AO has no authority to review on the same facts under the guise of reassessment [Paras 22, 24, 27].

Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Reopening Based on AY 2012-13 Records – The reasons provided by the AO for reopening relied on details from the assessment records of AY 2012-13, without any new tangible evidence for AY 2011-12 – The expenses for Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) and production and translation costs, which the AO sought to disallow, had already been examined and allowed in subsequent assessments, affirming consistency in the deductions – The court cited A.T. Kearney India Ltd. v. ITO and Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Ltd. v. IAC to emphasize that reassessment notices lack validity when the foundational reason ceases to exist [Paras 18, 29].

Alternative Remedy – Section 263 Invocation – The court noted that if the AO believed there was an error in the original assessment, the appropriate remedy would have been a revision under Section 263, not reassessment under Section 147 – The AO’s reasoning that the assessment errors were due to mistakes or insufficient verification is insufficient to justify a reassessment [Paras 20, 27].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.03.2018 and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereunder – No cost order issued [Paras 30, 31].

Execution Proceedings – Auction Sale – Upset Price Fixation – Material Irregularity - The appellant, judgment-debtor, contested the fixation of the upset price at Rs. 29,00,000 for his property valued at a much higher amount, contending that this drastic reduction without reason caused substantial injury – The execution court initially set a higher upset price of Rs. 93,75,000, which was reduced due to non-bidding, but without a detailed assessment of the property’s actual value – Held: Reducing the upset price significantly without justifiable reasoning is a material irregularity that impacts the judgment-debtor's interests and fairness of the sale, rendering the sale void [Paras 3-5].

Execution Court’s Discretion – Assessment of Property Value – Absence of Advocate Commissioner’s Report Consideration - The court criticized the execution court’s decision to lower the upset price without considering the Advocate Commissioner’s valuation report, which assessed a higher market value – Court emphasized that property sales in execution must fairly reflect market value to prevent unjust financial loss to the judgment-debtor – Order setting aside the execution sale upheld due to lack of market value appraisal [Para 4].

Procedural Justice – Setting Aside Execution Order – Order 21 Rule 90 CPC - The substantial reduction of upset price without rationale led to procedural injustice by causing potential financial loss to the appellant – Under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC, material irregularities affecting judgment-debtor’s rights to fair value justify setting aside the auction sale – Direction issued for fresh sale proceedings with proper upset price determination [Para 6].

Final Decision - Appeal allowed, execution court’s order reducing upset price is set aside – New direction for execution court to conduct sale afresh, ensuring reasonable upset price determination within six months.

Criminal Law - Fair Trial – Right to Defend – Access to Evidence by Accused – The accused sought access to CCTV visuals that were part of the prosecution evidence to prepare his defense. The court observed that denying access to such evidence infringes on the accused’s right to a fair trial. – Held: The accused has the right to view prosecution evidence unless it infringes on the privacy of the victim. – Outcome: Special Judge’s denial was unjustified; order set aside [Paras 8-11].

Admissibility of Digital Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act – The CCTV footage lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court clarified that its admissibility would be decided by the trial court on merits, but denying preliminary access to the accused was unwarranted. – Held: Non-certification does not preclude viewing for defense purposes. – Outcome: Viewing permitted; admissibility to be determined during trial [Paras 12-14].

Balancing Victim’s Privacy and Accused’s Rights – Legal Parameters – While granting access to CCTV visuals, the court underscored that such access must not compromise the victim’s privacy, aligning with precedents like Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala. – Held: Privacy concerns must be balanced with defense rights. – Outcome: Accused and counsel allowed to view footage under regulated conditions [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The trial court’s order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted access to the CCTV visuals for defense preparation. The trial court was directed to facilitate viewing before or during the trial, subject to regulated conditions ensuring the victim’s privacy. Observations regarding admissibility were clarified as non-binding for the trial court.
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Cruelty – Mental Illness and Suppression of Facts – Divorce Granted – The appellant-husband sought divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty caused by the respondent-wife’s erratic and unsound behavior, which was allegedly suppressed at the time of marriage – Evidence presented by the appellant, including his testimony and that of his neighbor, remained unrebutted by the respondent, who failed to appear before the Family Court or High Court – Held: Mental cruelty was established due to the respondent’s mental state, which caused harassment, humiliation, and societal insult to the appellant – Divorce was granted in favor of the appellant [Paras 9, 13].

Desertion – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Divorce Granted – The Court referred to the principles of desertion as explained by the Supreme Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah vs. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 – The respondent had been living separately since 2012 without justifiable reason, satisfying the conditions of factum of separation and animus deserendi – Held: The respondent’s desertion was established, and the decree of divorce was granted in favor of the appellant [Paras 10, 12].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation and Absence of Cohabitation – Divorce Granted – The Court noted that the parties had been living separately for 12 years, with no possibility of reconciliation – Citing Supreme Court judgments in R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha, 2019 (4) SCC 409 and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511, the Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and its continuation would constitute cruelty – Held: Divorce was granted as the marriage had broken down irretrievably [Paras 11-13].

Permanent Alimony – Economic Condition of Parties Considered – Alimony Directed – The Court directed the appellant-husband, a laborer, to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 as permanent alimony for the respondent-wife within two months – Held: The decree of divorce was made conditional upon payment of alimony to ensure financial support for the respondent [Para 14].

Media Reporting and Freedom of Speech – Article 19(1)(a) Scope in Criminal Case Reporting - The court examined the balance between the media’s freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and the requirements of fair trial and privacy rights, emphasizing that while media plays a critical role in a democracy, reporting must align with principles of accuracy and constitutional morality. Held: Article 19(1)(a) rights are limited by public interest, dignity, and the individual’s right to a fair trial under Article 21. Reporting that misleads the public or prejudices trials can warrant judicial restraint [Paras 6-9, 18-23].

Proportionality and Restrictions on Media Freedom – Guidelines Not Issued, But Declared Limits of Media Rights - Addressing whether additional judicial guidelines were necessary, the court invoked the proportionality test, noting that freedom of expression must be exercised within limits respecting privacy and fair trial rights, without requiring new guidelines. Declaration: Media’s reporting rights do not include speculation on trial outcomes or factual distortions, aligning with precedents set in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI [Paras 20-23, 26].

Right to Information vs. Right to Privacy – Public’s Right to Know and Limits on Media Reporting - Court held that the public’s right to information does not extend to sensationalizing or inaccurate reporting, especially in ongoing criminal investigations. Media must ensure factual accuracy and context in reporting, reinforcing democratic transparency and public trust in the judiciary [Paras 10-12, 19-20].

Final Decision - The petitions seeking mandatory guidelines for media reporting were dismissed. The court declared the boundaries of Article 19(1)(a) in cases impacting public interest, right to fair trial, and privacy, providing a framework for media to self-regulate in reporting judicial matters and criminal investigations.
 

Service Law - Unauthorized Absence – Burden of Proof for Leave Approval – The petitioner claimed he was on sanctioned medical leave but provided no contemporaneous evidence of leave approval or timely submission of medical certificates – Held: Mere submission of certificates after absence is insufficient to prove authorized leave; no evidence was provided to demonstrate pre-approved leave [Paras 8-10].

Disciplinary Procedure – Compliance with Show Cause Requirement – The petitioner contended that the employer failed to issue a show cause notice with 30 days to respond as mandated by the Government Resolution for disengagement of contractual teachers – Held: Show cause notice was duly served, and petitioner’s response was considered, satisfying principles of natural justice [Paras 3, 10-11].

Material Non-disclosure – Petitioner's Omission of Prior Proceedings – Petitioner failed to disclose the prior show cause notice and response during the writ petition, later admitting it only in rejoinder – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts undermines petitioner's credibility; courts will deny relief to litigants who do not approach with clean hands [Para 10].

Unauthorized Attendance Register – Validity of Separate Record-Keeping – The petitioner created an alternative attendance register with endorsements from the Village Education Committee after returning to work without formal permission to sign the official register – Held: Self-created register lacks legal validity as no official authorization or procedural basis for such record-keeping was demonstrated [Para 9].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – The court upheld the Collector’s decision to disengage the petitioner due to unauthorized absence and failure to meet contractual obligations, with no grounds for interference found [Conclusion].

Guardianship – Article 226 – Appointment of Guardian for Person in Comatose State – Petition filed under Article 226 seeking declaration of the petitioner as the guardian of her husband, who is in a persistent vegetative state due to a cerebrovascular stroke – Held: No existing legislation for appointing a guardian in such cases; Court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interests of the comatose patient – Wife appointed as guardian to manage movable and immovable properties for the benefit of the husband and family – Strict conditions imposed for compliance and accountability [Paras 9–15].

Comatose Patient – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Lack of Legislation – In absence of specific statutory provisions addressing guardianship of persons in a vegetative state, the Court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 – Directive principles of state policy underscore the need for legislative intervention to address guardianship for individuals in such conditions [Paras 10–16].

Guidelines – Guardian Accountability – Court issued detailed guidelines ensuring accountability of the appointed guardian, including periodic reporting, restriction on misuse, and oversight by the Registrar and public officers – Permitted use of funds strictly for medical and welfare purposes [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Petitioner declared guardian of her husband, with authority to manage listed properties and accounts under prescribed conditions – Court emphasized legislative necessity to streamline guardianship procedures for comatose individuals.
 

Election Law – Cancellation of Elections – Impugned Order – The petitioner challenged the order dated 11.10.2024, which cancelled the elections for the post of Panch and Sarpanch of village Chak Haraj, Tehsil Mamdot, District Ferozepur – The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, arbitrary, and against natural justice – High Court held that the cancellation of elections was beyond the State Election Commission's jurisdiction, which should only be exercised by the Election Tribunal through an election petition [Paras 1, 4, 8, 9, 10].

Improper Rejection of Nomination – Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal – The dispute arose when the nomination papers of some candidates were rejected, leaving the petitioner as the sole candidate for the Sarpanch post – Under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, improper rejection of nominations can be grounds for voiding an election, but this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal – The Court found that the Commission’s cancellation order was an overreach, as it did not have the authority to adjudicate election disputes [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Legal Precedent – Bar on Interference During Election Process – Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952), the Court held that election disputes should be addressed only after elections through an election petition, not during ongoing elections, as this could unduly delay the process – This principle supports the view that only an Election Tribunal can decide such disputes post-election [Para 11].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to declare the petitioner as elected unopposed as Sarpanch – The Court also directed respondents to conduct fresh elections for the Panch posts, limited to candidates with accepted nominations – The Court clarified that any aggrieved party could challenge the results by filing an election petition before the Election Tribunal [Paras 12, 13].
 

Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision:

The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.