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].

Civil Writ - Rent Law  – Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Scope of Judicial Review under Article 227 – Petition challenging lower court orders that allowed the landlord’s eviction application under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP Urban Buildings Act for setting up an Advocate’s chamber – Tenant argued that the landlord’s stated need was insincere and merely a pretext for eviction, citing existing practice space; claimed greater hardship from eviction – Held: Both Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority correctly assessed the landlord’s need as genuine, noting the tenant’s failure to specifically counter claims of alternative premises and lack of active use of the shop – High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction does not permit factual reappraisal; intervention restricted to jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice, absent in this case – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12].

Judicial Superintendence – Limited Scope under Article 227 – Standards for Interference – High Court emphasized limits of Article 227 jurisdiction, reaffirming that intervention is warranted only for jurisdictional overreach or perversity in findings – Observed that factual errors or sufficiency of evidence do not justify interference absent gross injustice or error apparent on record – Held: Lower courts’ findings based on reasonable evidence, including unchallenged assertions about the tenant’s use of premises; no scope for High Court to substitute its judgment [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority upheld – Interim order vacated [Para 12].

Criminal Writ - Preventive Detention – Legality of Repeated Detention on Identical Grounds – Appellant contested the detention order dated 23.02.2024, arguing it was based on grounds identical to those in a prior detention order quashed by the court – Held: Issuing a fresh detention order on the same grounds previously quashed lacks legal basis unless fresh, substantial grounds are present; the detaining authority’s reliance on stale grounds violates the right to personal liberty under Article 22(5) [Paras 1-6].

Fresh Material Requirement – Validity of Grounds in Successive Detention Orders – Appellant's detention order included reference to an additional FIR (No. 67/2022) which had also been dismissed by the designated NIA Court – Held: Inclusion of the dismissed FIR does not qualify as valid fresh material for detention; preventive detention must rest on new evidence that bears direct relevance to public order concerns [Para 9].

Subjective Satisfaction – Detaining Authority’s Discretion – Courts noted that reliance on prior criminal activities alone does not satisfy subjective satisfaction requirements if activities are stale and lack a current, live link to public order – Held: Reference to prior, quashed grounds for detention fails the test of subjective satisfaction essential for preventive detention orders [Para 10].

Personal Liberty – Constitutional Safeguard under Article 22(5) – The court emphasized the sanctity of personal liberty, asserting that preventive detention, a deviation from standard criminal process, must meet stringent standards of procedural fairness and substantiation to prevent abuses of power [Para 12].

Final Decision – Appeal allowed – The court quashed the impugned detention order and directed the appellant’s release unless required in another case, underscoring the misuse of preventive detention powers by the detaining authority [Conclusion].

Service Law – Delay in Payment of Leave Encashment and CGEGI – Grant of Interest under Rule 39(3) of CCS Leave Rules and Constitutional Principles – Petition filed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi challenging CAT’s order for interest on delayed release of leave encashment and CGEGI – Respondent retired in July 2022, but leave encashment and CGEGI were disbursed only in December 2023; Tribunal granted interest based on principles of restitution and Supreme Court precedent in S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana – Held: Rule 39(3) allows withholding of leave encashment only if disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending; administrative delays without such proceedings cannot justify withholding, and compensation through interest is warranted to address the delay’s impact – High Court affirmed Tribunal’s order, emphasizing employee’s right to timely retirement benefits under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 20].

Interest as a Restitution Principle – Jurisdiction of Tribunal in Awarding Interest on Delayed Retirement Benefits – Petitioners argued against interest on the basis of respondent’s alleged non-cooperation; Court clarified that interest for delayed payment is justified when procedural lapses occur without statutory or disciplinary basis – Held: Following S.K. Dua, interest can be granted by CAT in absence of express statutory provision, in line with principles of fairness and restitution, where delay in disbursal impacts retiree’s rights under the Constitution – Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s award of interest at GPF rates upheld [Paras 10, 18, 20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to comply with Tribunal’s order for interest payment at GPF rates on delayed leave encashment and CGEGI disbursal within four weeks – No case for issuance of notice in writ petition [Para 22].
 

Criminal Law - Acquittal in Essential Commodities Act Violation – Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – The State challenged the trial court’s acquittal of the accused, arguing that the unlicensed possession of rapeseed oil contravened essential commodity regulations. The court noted that the prosecution failed to substantiate ownership and possession of the storage site, undermining their claim – Held: Prosecution evidence did not conclusively prove the accused’s possession of the godown, nor link them definitively to the contraband, justifying the acquittal [Paras 5-7].

Appellate Interference in Acquittal Orders – Double Presumption of Innocence – Citing Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and State of U.P. v. Banne, the court emphasized the need for restraint in overturning acquittals, especially where evidence is inconclusive or lacks corroboration – Held: The presumption of innocence is reinforced post-acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted only if findings are perverse or ignore substantial evidence, which was not established here [Paras 10-14].

Analyst’s Report and Evidence Reliability – The prosecution relied on an analyst’s report that identified adulteration in a sample of rapeseed oil, though only one of the fifteen tins was tested. The court found this insufficient to prove uniform contamination, further noting irregularities in evidence handling – Held: Evidence lacked the reliability to support the State’s claims, underscoring the trial court’s decision [Para 12].

Judgment – Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. The court found no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment given the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decision: Appeal G.A. 11 of 1986 dismissed. Trial court acquittal under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act is upheld.

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.

Selection Process – Eligibility and Compliance with Control Order Requirements – The petitioners contested the selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship, asserting that his godown failed to meet key specifications, such as sufficient ventilation and an open veranda, required under the Control Order, 2013 – Held: The Directorate Level Selection Committee’s allocation of high marks to Respondent No. 6, despite non-compliance with essential godown specifications, was arbitrary and merited judicial review [Paras 6-9].

Sanction of Godown Plan by Gram Panchayat – Validity and Jurisdiction – Petitioners argued that the plan for Respondent No. 6’s godown was improperly sanctioned by a Gram Panchayat, which lacked the authority to approve structures over 6,000 sq. ft. – The court agreed, holding that only the Zilla Parishad could authorize such plans under the Panchayat Act, rendering the respondent's approval invalid and unsuitable for a public distribution purpose [Paras 10-13].

Final Score Adjustment and Procedural Irregularities – Despite Respondent No. 6 scoring lower than the petitioner on the initial inspection, he received higher final marks due to the committee’s 80% weighting – Court found that this manipulation lacked transparency and disregarded merit-based assessment, favoring Respondent No. 6 without clear justification [Paras 15-18].

Selection of Respondent No. 6 for MR distributorship quashed. Direction issued to grant distributorship license to the petitioner, provided he meets all eligibility criteria within six weeks [Para 25].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Selection of Respondent No. 6 for distributorship is quashed. State authority directed to issue license to the petitioner if found eligible.

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.