Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Priyanka Saraswat Dev (alias Raksha), filed the present writ petition seeking relief similar to that granted in a related matter involving her husband (W.P.(C) 4649/2022).

The husband’s case involved:

  • Challenge to assessment orders passed under Sections 144 read with 153A of the Income Tax Act for AY 2005–06 to 2011–12
  • Allegation of lack of proper opportunity to defend, as notices were not properly served and he remained in judicial custody
  • A substantial tax demand of approximately ₹436 crores

In the present case, the petitioner:

  • Relied upon the earlier judgment in her husband’s case
  • Sought access to seized documents and electronic data (DVDs, CDs, pen drives, HDDs) without payment of fees
  • Claimed inability to effectively pursue legal remedies without access to such material

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to copies of seized documents and electronic data without payment of fees
  2. Whether denial of such documents restricts the petitioner’s right to access justice under Article 21
  3. Whether directions issued in the husband’s case can be applied mutatis mutandis to the present case

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner relied on the coordinate bench decision in her husband’s case
  • It was argued that:
    • Access to seized documents is essential to defend against tax proceedings
    • The petitioner is similarly placed as her husband
    • Without documents, effective legal remedy is impossible
  • Sought:
    • Soft copies of seized material without charges
    • Relief consistent with earlier judicial directions

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Revenue (Respondents) submitted that:
    • Instructions would be taken regarding the request for documents
  • Subsequently, the respondent fairly conceded that:
    • Directions issued in the husband’s case could be applied to the present matter

Court’s Findings / Order

The Court held:

  • The principles laid down in the husband’s case would apply mutatis mutandis
  • Recognized that:
    • Access to justice is a fundamental right under Article 21
    • Litigants must be enabled to pursue legal remedies effectively

Directions Issued

  1. Electronic documents:
    • Petitioner allowed to replicate data onto a hard disk under supervision
  2. Physical documents:
    • Copies to be provided by the Revenue at their own cost
  3. The writ petition was:
    • Disposed of in terms of earlier directions
    • Pending applications closed

 

Important Clarifications

  • The Court emphasized:
    • Access to justice includes practical ability to defend a case
    • Financial incapacity cannot become a barrier where documents are essential
  • The ruling reinforces:
    • Procedural fairness in tax proceedings
    • Rights of individuals in custody to defend legal claims

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60830102023CW116272023_115330.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.