Income Tax Law – Revision of Returns – Limitation – Appellant filed revised returns multiple times for the assessment year 1989-90, the last of which was submitted on 29th October 1991 – Assessing Officer refused to consider the return, citing Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, which barred the revised return due to the lapse of the one-year time limit – Appeals were filed but the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the revised return could not be entertained as it was barred by limitation – Held: Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return [Paras 1-3].

Appellate Powers of Tribunal – Section 254 of the IT Act – Appellant contended that the Tribunal could consider claims omitted from the original return during assessment proceedings – Reliance placed on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – However, Tribunal did not invoke its powers under Section 254 and instead remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, who had no authority to consider the time-barred return – High Court upheld the decision, finding no fault in the Tribunal's approach [Paras 5-7].

Judgment: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision affirmed – Revised return filed after the time limit could not be considered by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim [Paras 9-11].

Contract Law – Tender Process – Rejection of Technical Bid – Appellant’s technical bid was rejected by BCCL for non-compliance with Clause 10 of the NIT, while Respondent No. 8’s bid was accepted despite non-submission of essential documents at the time of bidding – Held: The rejection of the appellant’s bid was arbitrary and discriminatory as Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit shortfall documents after the bid opening – The impugned decision was set aside, and BCCL was directed to initiate a fresh tender process [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness in Government Contracts – The Supreme Court reiterated that while courts exercise restraint in reviewing administrative actions, government bodies must ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination in the award of contracts – BCCL's decision-making process lacked transparency and violated the principle of equal treatment of bidders, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 22-23].

Scope of Judicial Review – Government Tenders – The Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the contract – However, deviations from mandatory tender conditions must apply equally to all bidders, and any element of arbitrariness or discrimination in the process justifies interference [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – BCCL's rejection of the appellant's technical bid and the award of the contract to Respondent No. 8 were quashed – BCCL directed to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law [Paras 20, 21, 24].

Bail Application – Charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Grant of Bail – Appellant accused of offenses including abduction and sexual assault – Appeal against rejection of bail by the Rajasthan High Court – Argument of consensual relationship due to close age gap between appellant and the minor victim – Held: The appellant has been in custody since May 2024, and the trial will be prolonged with 12 witnesses to be examined – Considering these facts, bail granted with conditions [Paras 2-6].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – While granting bail, the Supreme Court directed the appellant not to misuse his liberty, influence witnesses, or associate with the victim in any way – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting bail to the appellant. The appellant was directed to present himself before the Trial Court, which would set appropriate bail conditions to ensure his cooperation with the proceedings. Any violation of these conditions would result in the revocation of bail [Paras 9-10].

Suspension of Sentence – Section 389(1) CrPC – Denial of Parity in Bail – The appellants sought suspension of sentence and release on bail, similar to co-accused Pappu, who was granted bail despite being the primary accused in the murder – High Court rejected the plea on grounds of differing periods of imprisonment served by the appellants and co-accused – Held: The appellants have served less time compared to Pappu, and no parity could be claimed in such a scenario – Bail denial upheld [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail Consideration – Appellant Narendra Singh was alleged to have prior criminal cases, one for which he was on bail – Held: Mere pendency of a trial should not automatically disqualify the appellant from suspension of sentence as he remains innocent until proven guilty – Argument accepted, and bail granted with conditions [Paras 7-12].

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and suspended the life imprisonment sentences of the appellants. The appellants were granted bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that failure to participate in the pending criminal appeal proceedings would result in cancellation of the bail [Paras 12-16].

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Section 21(c) NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody since April 2023 in connection with the seizure of Codeine Phosphate syrup. Despite the filing of the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, the trial was not set to commence until January 2025. The Supreme Court granted bail, considering the prolonged pre-trial detention and the uncertainty surrounding the trial’s conclusion – Held: The appellant to be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Right to Liberty – The Court noted that the appellant had been incarcerated for over a year and five months, with the trial yet to begin. The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention, without concrete progress in trial proceedings, impinges on the appellant’s right to liberty.

Conditions for Bail – Ensuring Compliance – The Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the trial proceedings and not misuse the liberty granted by bail. Any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Charges under IPC and POCSO Act – Appellant arrested under Sections 354(D), 506, 363, 366, 376, 511, and 34 IPC, and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of the POCSO Act – High Court rejected bail due to seriousness of the charges and age of the victim – Supreme Court grants bail considering the appellant’s young age and fact that the victim was in a consensual relationship – Held: Trial will be prolonged, and the appellant has been in jail since May 2024 – Bail granted with strict conditions to ensure compliance.

Consensual Relationship – Alleged Offences under POCSO Act – Appellant contends that the victim and he were in a consensual relationship – Prosecution disputes this, stating the victim was a minor (16 years old) at the time – Supreme Court grants bail based on the prolonged nature of the trial and the age difference between the parties, subject to conditions, including prohibition on re-associating with the victim .

Bail Conditions – Risk of Flight or Influence – Supreme Court emphasizes that the appellant must not misuse his liberty or attempt to influence witnesses – Strict conditions imposed: Appellant must not contact the victim in any manner, and any violation will lead to cancellation of bail.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant – Supreme Court directs the trial court to release the appellant on bail with appropriate conditions to ensure his compliance and presence during the trial.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Detention – PMLA Case – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody for over two years, facing charges under the PMLA based on an FIR that initially alleged non-scheduled offenses. With the addition of Section 384 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court, considering the prolonged detention and the lack of a scheduled offense at the time of filing the complaint, granted bail – Held: Continuation of custody would violate the appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Paras 6-10].

Scheduled Offense Requirement under PMLA – FIR Analysis – The Court observed that the initial FIR registered under IPC Sections 186, 204, 353, and 120-B did not contain scheduled offenses. Even after the addition of Section 384 IPC, the charge-sheet failed to establish the commission of a scheduled offense, and therefore, the appellant’s detention under PMLA was unjustified [Paras 5-7].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Prolonged Custody – The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial, especially when no scheduled offense was established at the time of filing the PMLA complaint, infringed upon the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Challenge to the repeal of Khalsa University established under the 2016 Act – Appellant argued the repeal act was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent State of Punjab justified repeal, citing protection of the heritage character of Khalsa College – Held: The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was discriminatory and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable classification – The Act failed to prove an intelligible differentia for singling out Khalsa University – Appeal allowed, the repeal Act struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored [Paras 1, 24, 56-66].

Legislation – Single Entity Law – Discrimination – The Khalsa University was singled out for repeal while 16 other private universities established under the 2010 policy continued to operate – Appellants contended that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment – Court found that the State had not provided material to support its classification and no compelling or emergent situation justified such an action – Held: Repeal Act violated Article 14 as it was discriminatory against the Khalsa University without reasonable basis [Paras 56-59].

Arbitrariness – Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was enacted to protect the heritage status of Khalsa College, but the University had no direct impact on Khalsa College’s heritage – Appellants provided a specific undertaking to not affect Khalsa College – Court found the basis for the repeal Act was non-existent and thus manifestly arbitrary – Held: The repeal Act was enacted irrationally without adequate determining principle, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 64-65].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed – The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 is struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored – No costs imposed [Paras 66].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Forgery – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellants, accused of cheating and forgery in a loan fraud involving forged mortgage documents submitted to a bank, sought to quash the proceedings after a settlement was reached – High Court dismissed the plea, citing that the offenses affected public interest, and could not be quashed due to a private settlement – Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the case was civil in nature with criminal facets and that a settlement had been reached, rendering further prosecution unjustified [Paras 1-39].

Loan Fraud – Role of Appellants – The appellants, wives of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, were involved only as co-guarantors in the loan and had no active role in the alleged forgery and conspiracy – The principal accused had settled the outstanding dues with the bank, closing the loan account – Continuation of criminal proceedings was held to be oppressive and futile given the settlement [Paras 5, 14, 36].

Private Settlement – Impact on Criminal Liability – Supreme Court noted that the offenses, although non-compoundable, predominantly bore a civil character arising from financial transactions – Following precedents, including Gian Singh and Nikhil Merchant, the Court held that private settlements in cases with civil overtones could lead to quashing of criminal charges when conviction seemed unlikely and continuation would be oppressive [Paras 17, 23, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appellants acquitted from all charges​.