Live-in Relationship – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners, a minor girl aged 14 years and 8 months, and a 20-year-old boy, sought protection from their families – Held, legitimacy of live-in relationships requires certain conditions – Court found petitioners' claim of live-in relationship unsupported due to minor status of petitioner No.2 – Directed SSP, Sirsa to ensure minor's custody restored to her parents after coordination with Rajasthan police [Paras 1-16].

Child Marriage and Legal Implications – Evaluation of Child Marriage Act – Emphasized need to eradicate child marriage – Referred Supreme Court suggestions for declaring child marriages void ab initio – Urged Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh administrations to consider legislative changes to combat child marriage [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Directed SSP, Sirsa to restore custody of minor to her parents with coordination from Rajasthan police [Para 16].

Property Rights – Ownership of Common Land – Petitioners challenged their suspension under Section 20 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Questioned divestment of ownership rights over land reserved for common purposes during consolidation – Held, Section 42A of the 1948 Act does not divest proprietors of ownership – Control and management vest in Gram Panchayat or State till land is usable for common purposes – Once land is not usable for common purposes, ownership revives and compensation for sale should be paid to proprietors – Suspension orders quashed as distribution of sale proceeds among proprietors is not a ground for suspension [Paras 1-5, 33-37].

Legal Precedents – Vesting of Proprietary Rights – Cited Supreme Court and Full Bench decisions confirming that ownership of common land remains with proprietary body unless used for common purposes – Differentiated between various types of common land and clarified that JumlaMushtarka Malkan land does not vest in Gram Panchayat [Paras 3, 5, 13-18].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Suspension orders of petitioners from their respective offices set aside – Emphasized need for appropriate compensation and upholding of proprietary rights – Directed no misappropriation found in decision to distribute sale proceeds to proprietors [Paras 37-38].

Parole – Denial of Parole – Petitioner convicted under Sections 120-B, 302, 34, 109, and 115 IPC – Denied parole based on past conduct where she absconded during emergency parole and was arrested with fake documents at Nepal border – District Magistrate's decision upheld due to risk of evading legal process and escaping the country – Previous misuse of parole considered significant [Paras 1-19].

Conduct and Risk Assessment – Parole Consideration – Court emphasized parole is a privilege, not a right – Conduct during previous parole critical in decision – Petitioner’s prior absconding and possession of fake documents indicative of flight risk – Parole denied to maintain integrity of judicial process and ensure public safety [Paras 9-16].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Parole request denied – High Court supported the decision of the District Magistrate, reinforcing that parole is contingent on good conduct and cannot be granted where there is a high risk of evasion and potential harm to public order [Para 19].

Regularization of Contract Employees – Appointment Legitimacy – Petitioners sought directions for regularization of services, claiming long-term engagement on contractual basis – Held, unclear whether appointments were made after inviting applications and selection among applicants – Reliance on judgments in Umadevi and Sheo Narain Nagar misplaced – Supreme Court in Umadevi emphasized against regularization without following due process unless specific conditions met – Petitioners not covered under exceptions as none completed 10 years of service by judgment date – Dismissed [Paras 1-11].

Supreme Court Precedents – Application of Umadevi and Sheo Narain Nagar – Court noted Umadevi's stance against regularization without competitive selection – Exceptions for employees on sanctioned posts for over 10 years not applicable to petitioners – Sheo Narain Nagar case involved different facts, where petitioner met Umadevi's exception criteria – Petitioners’ cases did not align with these precedents [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine – Emphasized need for proper selection process and compliance with constitutional requirements for regularization – Petitioners directed to apply through regular recruitment channels as per notification [Para 11].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Merger – Petitioner alleged willful disobedience of interim order dated 20.03.2020 in CWP No.6988 of 2020 – Held, interim order merges with the final order upon disposal of writ petition – Interim order ceases to operate post-final judgment – Contempt petition dismissed as interim relief was contingent upon the writ's outcome, which was decided on 06.10.2020 [Paras 1-21].

Limitation and Procedural Law – Delay in Re-filing Appeals – Tribunal dismissed appeal due to delay in re-filing beyond statutory period – High Court noted difference between delay in filing and re-filing – Tribunal erred in not recognizing this distinction – Tribunal's order set aside, and matter remanded for reconsideration of delay in re-filing [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Contempt Petition Dismissed – High Court ruled interim order ceased post final judgment – No contempt found – Petitioner's remedy lies in pending LPA [Paras 21-22].

Bail – Grant of Regular Bail – Petitioners, Managing Directors of QVC Realty Company Limited and Chintels India Limited, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners accused of fraud and money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA – FIR initially registered under Section 10 of the 1975 Act and Section 420 IPC for breach of license terms – Twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA deemed unconstitutional by Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah case – Held, petitions to be considered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. without the twin conditions – Bail granted subject to conditions including deposit of passports and furnishing local sureties [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Validity – Twin Conditions for Bail – Court examined the amended Section 45(1) of the PMLA – Twin conditions for bail originally declared unconstitutional in Nikesh Tarachand Shah – Amendment did not revive these conditions – Current bail application to be considered without these twin conditions – Rationale supported by various High Court judgments and absence of Supreme Court stay on these decisions [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitions allowed – Directed release on regular bail with conditions to ensure presence during trial and non-interference in the investigation [Para 26].

Teachers Transfer Policy – Weightage of Points – Clause 6 – Petitioners challenged the policy on grounds of discrimination and inaccuracies in the online portal showing vacant posts – Court held the policy aimed at uplifting education standards in higher classes and did not suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination – Emphasized that administrative decisions applicable to all should not be interfered with except in exceptional circumstances – Petitioners' claim of special prejudice rejected – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-7].

Administrative Decisions – Judicial Review – Policy Implementation – Court highlighted the importance of policy decisions taken by the administration based on comprehensive data and aimed at specific objectives – Interference by the courts should be minimal unless decisions are shown to be arbitrary, shocking, or mala fide – Found no specific instance of incorrect vacant post data to warrant judicial notice [Paras 4-7].

Factual Assertions – Verification by Department – Court held that verifying the accuracy of vacant post data is the department's responsibility – No compelling evidence provided by petitioners to justify issuing notice on this aspect – Department's decision-making autonomy respected [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Clause 6 of the Teachers Transfer Policy does not require court interference – Petitioners’ arguments regarding discriminatory point allocation and incorrect vacancy data rejected – Responsibility for verifying data and handling objections lies with the department – Petition dismissed [Para 7].

Regulation of Fee – Private Unaided Educational Institutions – Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 30(1) – Vires of Section 87 of the Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966 – Notification extending Punjab Regulation of Fee of Unaided Educational Institutions Act, 2016 to Chandigarh challenged – Requirement for schools to disclose income, expenditure, and balance sheet on website – Court held provisions reasonable, aimed at transparency and curbing profiteering – No violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1) – Autonomy of institutions not infringed – Petition dismissed [Paras 176-182].

Transparency and Accountability – Public Interest – Reasonable Restrictions – Court emphasized education as a profession involving charitable activities – Regulatory measures to protect student community and ensure non-exploitative education standards upheld – Modifications made to ensure balance between interests of students, institutions, and societal need for accessible quality education [Paras 176-182].

Autonomy vs. Regulation – National Interest – Court reiterated that rights under Article 30(1) are not absolute – Government regulations permissible to ensure transparency, prevent profiteering, and maintain educational standards – Modifications by Central Government do not destroy minority character of institutions [Para 177].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Held – Modifications by Central Government in extending the 2016 Act to Chandigarh valid and reasonable – Provisions ensuring transparency and accountability do not violate constitutional rights – Regulatory measures necessary for preventing capitation fee and profiteering in education – Petitions dismissed [Paras 182].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Beyond 24 Weeks – Genetic Defect – Section 3(2)(ii) of the MTP Act – Petitioner sought termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks and 5 days due to genetic defect in fetus – Previous child with similar disorder – Permanent Medical Board confirmed fetus likely affected by Metachromatic Leukodystrophy, a neurological disorder – Court held petitioner’s case falls under Section 3(2)(ii) despite being 6 days beyond 24-week limit – Termination permitted in light of Medical Board's recommendation – Petition allowed [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Consideration – Statutory Interpretation – Section 3(2) – Court emphasized importance of Medical Board’s clear recommendation and petitioner’s psychological distress – Statutory period of 24 weeks not absolute if substantial risk of serious fetal abnormality is confirmed – Medical and psychological considerations override strict statutory limits [Paras 3-6].

Public Interest – Health and Welfare – Court highlighted importance of considering health and welfare of the petitioner – Termination in petitioner’s interest due to potential lifelong problems for child with Metachromatic Leukodystrophy – Judicial intervention necessary to prevent undue hardship [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks permitted due to genetic defect in fetus – PGIMER Chandigarh directed to admit petitioner and terminate pregnancy under supervision of Head of Obstetrics and Gynaecology – Economic condition of petitioner to be considered for expenses [Para 7-10].