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].

Contempt of Court – Social Media Remarks – Prima Facie Frustration – Proceedings Dropped – Respondent-Contemnor, an advocate, faced contempt proceedings initiated upon a reference alleging derogatory remarks against a Judicial Magistrate posted on social media – Remarks allegedly made in retaliation to judicial custody order passed during criminal proceedings – Respondent-contemnor alleged systemic harassment by police and judiciary, substantiated by medical reports showing injuries sustained in custody – Court observed that remarks were a frustrated outburst stemming from traumatic experiences and prima facie unjust treatment – Held: Social media remarks, though unacceptable, arose from circumstances warranting a lenient approach – Contempt proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 4, 8].

Criminal Contempt – Scope and Application – Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Dignity – Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in contempt cases, highlighting principles laid down in precedents – Criticism of the judiciary permissible if fair and devoid of malice – Remarks scandalizing or obstructing the judicial process merit intervention, but courts must also consider the broader context of systemic grievances – Court noted the respondent’s frustration as a mitigating factor and observed that penal action would serve no useful purpose [Paras 6–7].

Relief – Contempt Proceedings Dropped – Rule Discharged – After evaluating the respondent-contemnor’s conduct and circumstances, court concluded that the proceedings did not warrant punitive action – Court adopted a truth-oriented and value-based approach to resolve the matter – Held: Contempt proceedings dropped – Rule discharged [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed of – No punitive action taken against the respondent-contemnor – [Paras 9–10].

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.
 

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].
 

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].

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].

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 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.