Defamation Allegation on Online Platforms – Section 69A of the IT Act – Directions against Intermediaries Denied – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought the removal of a video on YouTube alleging it to be defamatory and contrary to the rights of the Marthoma community – Held: The content in question does not fall within the scope of Section 69A of the IT Act, which is limited to situations affecting sovereignty, integrity, and public order, among others – The Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1] categorically limits intermediary obligations under Section 69A to Court-ordered directions for blocking content – Decision: Writ Petition dismissed as no grounds for removal under Section 69A were made out [Paras 8-12].

Intermediary Liability – Section 79 of the IT Act – No Direct Obligation on Intermediary Without Court Order – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s contention that the intermediary violated its statutory responsibility was rejected – The Hon'ble Court clarified that under Section 79, intermediaries like YouTube are exempt from liability unless actual knowledge of unlawful acts is notified by a Court order – Reliance placed on the Shreya Singhal case, which read down Section 79(3)(b) to mean that an intermediary can only act upon actual knowledge from a competent authority or Court order – Decision: No relief granted, as no Court order existed to mandate the removal of content [Paras 8-11].

Scope of Section 69A and 79 – Limitation of Relief in Absence of Court Order or Government Notification – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the content violates Section 69A or that any Court order had been passed directing its removal – Held: Without such specific orders, intermediaries cannot be compelled to act solely based on allegations of defamation – Decision: Writ Petition dismissed, finding no statutory violation on part of the intermediaries [Paras 10-12].

Admissions via Fraud – Cancellation of Admissions – RPMT 2009 – Allegations of Impersonation – Dismissal of Petitions – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their MBBS admissions by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) due to allegations of cheating by impersonation in RPMT 2009 – Respondents relied on Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports and a committee report affirming impersonation allegations – Petitioners argued violations of natural justice and delay in proceedings – Held: Admissions attained via fraud are void; principles of natural justice do not mandate adherence when fraud is established – Cancellation upheld [Paras 4–8, 31.4–31.9].

Fraudulent Means – Doctrine of Res Judicata – Bar on Re-litigating Issues – Petitioners contended FSL report and committee findings lacked evidentiary support under Indian Evidence Act – Court held: Fraud vitiates all acts, and the principle of res judicata barred re-litigation of issues settled in earlier judicial decisions – Past judgments categorically upheld the cancellation of admissions, deeming them attained through fraudulent means [Paras 31.1–31.2, 31.6].

Impact on Public Interest – Integrity of Examination Process – Court emphasized the societal impact of allowing candidates who attained admissions via fraud to continue medical practice – Fraudulent admissions compromise the integrity of merit-based selection in medical education – Held: Cancellation of admissions aligns with public interest and preserves examination integrity [Paras 31.4–31.5].

Delay in Challenging Orders – Consequences of Laches – Petitioners failed to challenge foundational orders at the appropriate time, rendering their petitions untenable – Court observed: Delay and acquiescence preclude equitable relief – Impugned orders upheld [Paras 31.7–32].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned cancellation orders upheld – Relief denied due to fraud, delay, and lack of merit [Para 33].
 

Municipal Law – Inclusion of Gram Sabha Areas – Statutory Guidelines Violated – Petitioners challenged notification dated 25/04/2023, extending the municipal limits of Kalanwali to include Gram Sabha areas, without adhering to criteria under Annexure P-12 and Section 4(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 – Held: The impugned notification violated statutory provisions mandating consideration of objections and personal hearing – Notification quashed with liberty to reissue after compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 29–39].

Principles of Natural Justice – Civil Consequences – Necessity of Personal Hearing – Conversion of Gram Sabha areas to municipal limits entails significant civil consequences, including taxation and loss of agrarian character – Even absent explicit statutory mandate, principles of natural justice apply – Failure to grant personal hearing vitiates notification [Paras 27–38].

Panchayati Raj – Duration of Panchayats – Article 243E of the Constitution – Reduction in Panchayat’s tenure through inclusion of Gram Sabha areas in municipal limits violates constitutional mandate of five-year term for elected Panchayats – Impugned notification found unconstitutional [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Review – Applicability of Precedents – Decisions in Tehal Singh and Rameshchandra Porwal distinguished – Inapplicability of earlier rulings relied upon by respondents due to factual dissimilarities – Apex Court’s ruling in Baldev Singh emphasizing necessity of personal hearing upheld [Paras 25–37].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed: Impugned notification dated 25/04/2023 quashed.

Directions Issued: Respondents granted liberty to reissue notification after:

Granting personal hearing to objectors.

Recording detailed and reasoned decisions on objections.

Time frame for compliance: Four months from the date of this judgment.

Parole – Definition of Hardcore Prisoner – Rejection of Parole for Family Obligations – Petitioner convicted under Sections 148, 302, 307, and other provisions of IPC sought emergency parole for 10 weeks to attend his daughter’s marriage – Denial of parole citing petitioner’s involvement in criminal activities during prior paroles and categorization as a "hardcore prisoner" under Section 2(1)(g)(vi) of the 2022 Act – Held: Petitioner’s prior conduct during parole rendered him unsuitable for release – Custody parole granted for six hours on the day of the marriage under police supervision [Paras 4–5].

Temporary Release – Judicial Discretion – Statutory Framework – Right to parole is a statutory concession subject to discretion and compliance with the law – Parole not an absolute right, especially for prisoners with adverse conduct records – Custody parole deemed appropriate to balance family obligations and public safety [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Petition for Emergency Parole: Denied. Custody Parole Granted: Petitioner allowed six hours of custody parole (excluding travel time) on 05/12/2024, to attend his daughter’s marriage under police supervision in plain clothes.
 

Income Tax Law – Section 153C – Assessment Proceedings Initiated for a Non-Searched Person – Challenges Rejected - Jurisdiction – Validity of Notices under Section 153C – Extended Period of Ten Years – Petitioner challenged notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2014-15 as being time-barred – Court held that as per the amended provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, the extended period of ten years is applicable when the escaped income exceeds ₹50 lakh – Satisfaction note recorded on 23.10.2019, allowed reopening of assessments from AY 2009-10 to AY 2018-19 – Held: Notices were within the extended limitation period and validly issued [Paras 31, 34].

Satisfaction Note – Requirement for Valid Initiation of Proceedings – Petitioner contended that satisfaction notes by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person (dated 31.03.2018) and by the AO of the petitioner (dated 23.10.2019) were invalid – Court observed that satisfaction was duly recorded before transmitting material to the jurisdictional AO and within the period prescribed for completing assessments of the searched person – Held: Satisfaction note complied with Section 153C requirements and the CBDT Circular No. 24/2015 [Paras 27-28, 33].

Incriminating Material – Validity of Notices for Years Without Specific Material – Petitioner argued that notices for AYs where no incriminating material was found were invalid – Court held that the relevance of incriminating material to specific AYs could be addressed during assessment proceedings and through statutory remedies – Held: Challenges on this ground are premature and can be raised before the AO [Paras 35].

Principles from Precedents – Compliance with Judicial Guidelines – Court referred to the decisions in CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears [(2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC)], CIT v. Jasjit Singh [(2023) 458 ITR 437 (SC)], and Principal CIT v. Karina Airlines [(2024) 165 Taxman.com 421 (Delhi)] to affirm that:

Satisfaction notes must be recorded at the appropriate stage, but minor delays are permissible unless prejudicial to the assessee.
Notices may cover ten AYs when income exceeding ₹50 lakh has escaped assessment post-amendment.
A composite satisfaction note suffices if it refers to incriminating material impacting the relevant AYs [Paras 26-33].

Alternative Remedies – Premature Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction – Court held that the petitioner had adequate remedies during assessment proceedings and by filing appeals against any adverse order – Writ jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate at this stage to decide the validity of satisfaction or incriminating material’s sufficiency [Paras 18, 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Notices under Section 153C validly issued for AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15 – Assessment proceedings allowed to continue – Rule discharged [Paras 35].
 

Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Bail Application – Rejection – Bail under Section 37 – Stringent Conditions – Petitioner Amritpal Singh filed for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c)/21(c)/23(c)/29 of the NDPS Act for alleged involvement in drug trafficking. The case involved smuggling of 102.784 kg of heroin concealed in licorice root consignments and substantial hawala transactions – Petitioner’s role was attributed to facilitation of financial transactions for the syndicate – Recovery of ₹1.34 crores from the petitioner’s residence significantly linked him to the drug network – Held: Petitioner failed to meet the rigorous twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail [Paras 1, 58].

Financial Transactions – Unexplained Recovery – Role in Hawala Operations – ₹1.34 crores were recovered from the petitioner’s residence – Investigations revealed petitioner facilitated multiple transactions for the syndicate, including funds transferred to accused Shahid Ahmed and others – Contentions of lack of knowledge regarding sources of funds and commercial justification were unsubstantiated – No valid records or ledgers presented to support petitioner’s claims – Held: Recovery and financial patterns corroborated prosecution claims [Paras 24, 43-44].

Conspiracy – Modus Operandi – International Drug Syndicate – The syndicate was highly organized, employing sophisticated methods including dummy companies, shell entities, and encrypted communication applications (BOTIM, Signal, Telegram, etc.) – Petitioner traveled to Dubai, where he met the alleged mastermind Shahid Ahmed, and was implicated in the planning and facilitation of smuggling – Evidence from co-accused’s statements and digital data corroborated petitioner’s active participation [Paras 18, 25, 50.1, 50.2].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Corroboration – Statements from Lakhbir Singh (petitioner’s employee) and Tanveer Ahmed (co-accused turned approver) linked petitioner to illicit activities – Statements were corroborative and aligned with circumstantial evidence – Petitioner’s argument that these were inadmissible as hearsay was rejected at the bail stage [Paras 27, 29, 49].

Precedents and Parity – Distinction from Co-Accused – Co-accused Vipin Mittal was granted bail due to unique medical circumstances and limited role in the operation – Petitioner’s role as a financial facilitator, substantial recovery from his possession, and direct links to the drug syndicate distinguished his case – Reliance on precedents like Rattan Malik (2009 SCC OnLine SC 173) emphasized stringent requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act for bail in such cases [Paras 31, 46-48].

Public Policy – Drug Trafficking Menace – The Court emphasized the societal and economic impact of drug trafficking – Noted India’s geographic vulnerability and its role as a transit hub in international drug trade – Observed the petitioner’s role in a multi-dimensional crime with significant public health and safety implications [Paras 59-60].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Seriousness of allegations, potential flight risk, and weight of evidence negated petitioner’s claims [Paras 58, 61].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint Based on Compromise – Petition Allowed – The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, citing a mutual settlement between the parties – Held: Continuation of proceedings after a mutual compromise amounts to abuse of process of law – It was observed that the complainant had initially admitted to the compromise before the trial court but later attempted to backtrack without just cause – Decision: Complaint and all subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 2-10].

Abuse of Process – Enforcement of Compromise – Complaint Quashed – The respondent/complainant admitted to receiving payment as part of a mutual compromise but later denied the same, continuing litigation to harass the petitioner – Held: Allowing such actions would grant a premium to dishonest litigation and mock judicial proceedings – Court quashed the complaint to uphold the integrity of legal proceedings [Paras 9-10].

Settlement in Criminal Cases – Judicial Approach – The court relied on precedents, including Ruchi Aggarwal v. Amit Kumar Aggarwal (2004) and Paramjit Khanna v. Inder Pal (2018), to emphasize that once a compromise is acted upon, neither party can resile from it – Such settlements are binding, and continuation of litigation thereafter constitutes an abuse of process [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The petition was allowed. The complaint titled "Khilar Singh v. Smt. Babli" (NACT/2751/2019) and all subsequent proceedings arising from it were quashed by the court.
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Upheld – The appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – The appellate court emphasized the principle that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that leads only to the guilt of the accused – Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that suspicion, even when coupled with recovery of items allegedly belonging to the deceased, is insufficient – The chain of evidence was found incomplete – Held: Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-8].

Evidence Law – Last Seen Theory – Insufficiency of Proof – The prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W.4 to establish the last seen theory – However, the witness failed to provide clear and corroborative details linking the accused to the deceased – The testimony lacked precision, and the evidence was inconsistent – Held: The last seen theory lacked evidentiary weight and failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6-7].

Recovery of Ornaments – Identification Standards – Prosecution Failure – Recovered ornaments allegedly belonging to the deceased were identified by P.W.1 based solely on oral testimony – The identification was not supported by distinct marks or forensic evidence – The appellate court held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary threshold to connect the accused with the crime – Held: Recovery and identification did not substantiate guilt [Paras 6, 9].

Appeals Against Acquittal – Limited Scope of Interference – The court reaffirmed the principle that interference with an acquittal judgment requires evidence of perversity, misapplication of law, or disregard for material evidence – Suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt – The appellate court found no errors in the trial court's reasoning or appreciation of evidence – Held: The acquittal judgment was justified and did not warrant interference [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The trial court's judgment acquitting the accused was upheld – The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
 

Bail Application – Repeated Regular Bail Plea – Filing of Chargesheet Not a Substantial Change of Circumstances – Application Rejected - The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds of completion of investigation, delay in filing the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and alleged non-involvement in the crime – Held: Filing of the chargesheet does not constitute a substantive change of circumstances to warrant reconsideration of bail – Material on record prima facie indicates active involvement in heinous crimes, including the continuous sexual abuse of a minor for over four years – The gravity of the offence, societal impact, and potential for tampering with evidence or absconding necessitated rejection of bail – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 6, 15-17].

Parameters for Grant of Bail – Discretion to be Exercised Judiciously – Prima Facie Case Against Applicant - The Court reiterated established principles for granting bail, including the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence – Held: A prima facie case exists against the applicant, and the circumstances do not warrant grant of bail, considering the heinousness of the offence and societal ramifications – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 10, 13-15].

Societal Impact of Heinous Crimes – Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Bail Denied - The Court emphasized the need to balance the accused's right to liberty against the societal interest of ensuring justice for victims of heinous crimes – Observed that granting bail in such cases could undermine societal confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the victim – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 9-14].

Precedential Rulings – Filing of Chargesheet Does Not Automatically Warrant Bail - Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that while filing of the chargesheet changes the stage of investigation, it does not lessen the seriousness of the allegations – Mere filing of the chargesheet is not sufficient to justify release on bail unless accompanied by other substantial changes in circumstances – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Observations – Application of Established Bail Principles – Protection of Victim and Witnesses - The Court emphasized judicial discretion in bail matters, considering the nature of evidence, apprehension of tampering with witnesses, and societal interest in justice – Strong prima facie case and seriousness of the charges warranted continued custody of the applicant – Decision: Bail application rejected [Paras 13-17].