Criminal Law – Withdrawal of Prosecution – Permission from High Court Mandatory – Appellant, a former MLA, challenged criminal proceedings arising from FIRs under Arms Act and IPC – State had issued orders to withdraw cases citing public interest, and Public Prosecutor filed withdrawal application before trial court – Held: As per Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, no prosecution against sitting/former MP/MLA can be withdrawn without leave of the High Court – In present case, no such permission was obtained – Hence, trial court and High Court rightly declined to quash the proceedings [Paras 2–5, 10].

Section 321 CrPC – Judicial Function of Granting Consent – Court reaffirmed that even though withdrawal is initiated by Public Prosecutor, the court must ensure that such application is not to thwart justice – Public Prosecutor must form an independent opinion – Consent must subserve public interest and not be tainted by mala fides or extraneous purposes – Cited principles from State of Kerala v. K. Ajith and Ram Naresh Pandey – Emphasised High Court’s duty to judicially scrutinise such withdrawal applications concerning MPs/MLAs [Paras 6–9].

Public Prosecutor’s Role – Duty to Assist with Reasons – Held: Prosecutor must disclose all reasons for withdrawal to court – Mere good faith is insufficient – Courts must ensure the application is not an abuse of process – Reasons are essential to both administrative and judicial decision-making [Paras 9, 13].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s rejection of petitions under Section 482 CrPC upheld – No permission having been obtained from High Court as required – Proceedings to continue as per law – Observations on merits expressly kept open for trial/discharge stage [Para 10].

PIL - Disability Rights – Reasonable Accommodation – Civil Services Examination – Visually impaired candidates sought permission to use screen reader-enabled laptops and modify scribe details closer to exam date – Supreme Court held that such accommodations are essential to uphold Articles 14 and 21 – UPSC directed to permit change of scribes up to 7 days before exam and decide requests within 3 working days – Commission to submit a roadmap and timeline for screen reader software rollout after infrastructure and testing completion [Paras 2-5, 9-11].

Assistive Technology – Screen Reader Software – UPSC acknowledged lack of infrastructure for immediate implementation but made in-principle decision to enable screen reader use in future exams – Court directed coordination with NIEPVD and DEPwD to standardise protocols and ensure implementation from next examination cycle [Paras 6-8, 10-11].

Equal Opportunity – Exam Accessibility – Court held that denial of assistive accommodations violates fundamental rights and undermines inclusive public recruitment – Mandated that UPSC ensure accessibility while maintaining integrity and fairness of exam process – Implementation not an act of benevolence but constitutional obligation [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to UPSC and Union of India to ensure timely, inclusive implementation of accessibility measures in future exams – Matter to be listed on 16/02/2026 for compliance affidavit [Paras 11-16].

Criminal Law – Sentence Reduction – Compromise – Appellants convicted under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act for assault and property damage – Sentenced to five years and two years respectively (to run concurrently) – High Court affirmed conviction and sentence – In appeal before Supreme Court, compromise entered between parties – Appellants had already undergone 2 years and 3 months in custody – Held: While maintaining conviction, sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 4-11].

Criminal Procedure – Limited Notice on Sentence – Supreme Court issued notice confined to quantum of sentence – No interference with conviction – Court exercised discretion to reduce sentence considering compromise and substantial sentence already served [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Conviction upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants ordered to be released immediately, if not wanted in any other case [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Child Trafficking – Compliance with Directions – Victim Compensation and Education – Court reviewed the status of compliance with directions issued in the judgment dated 15.04.2025 – Held: Regarding education (Para 81h), trafficked children must be admitted to schools in accordance with the RTE Act, 2009; for children under 5, admission to be secured upon attaining age – Regarding compensation (Para 81i), Trial Courts must pass appropriate orders under BNSS, 2023 and the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bhai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh – Even where trials have concluded without compensation orders, courts are directed to proceed and pass appropriate orders for compensation. [Paras 3-6, 12]

Constitutional Law – Protection of Litigants – Retaliatory Termination of Service – Petitioner (Pinki) and her husband, employed as sweepers with the Varanasi Municipal Corporation through a contractor, were terminated from service – Amicus Curiae submitted that the termination was a result of authorities being "agitated" by the Supreme Court taking serious cognizance of the child trafficking issue raised by the petitioner – Held: The termination is "disheartening and shocking" – The Court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the husband and wife by 12:00 PM on the same day on the same terms and conditions – Warned that failure to reinstate would result in the suspension of the authority responsible for the termination. [Paras 14-17]

Administrative Law – Implementation of Policy – BIRD Report – Directions issued to State Governments to study the report by the BIRD (dated 12.04.2023) regarding child trafficking and implement its recommendations – High Courts directed to furnish data regarding the status of pending trials to facilitate the issuance of circulars for expeditious disposal. [Paras 7-12]

Decision: Directions issued for strict compliance regarding compensation and education; Immediate reinstatement of petitioner and husband ordered. [Paras 16-18]

Muslim Law – Post-divorce Property – Section 3 of 1986 Act – Return of Dower and Gifts – Appellant claimed ₹17.67 lakhs including ₹7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act – Trial court decreed partial return – High Court reversed, relying on father’s statement that amount was given to husband – Supreme Court held: High Court erred in discounting registrar’s testimony and final acquittal in 498A case – Entitlement under Section 3 includes all property given at marriage regardless of to whom it was given – Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to pay amount [Paras 3–10]

Interpretation of Statutes – Beneficial Legislation – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 – Must be construed to promote dignity, autonomy, and equality of divorced Muslim women – Court emphasized social context and purposive interpretation in light of Daniel Latifi – Held: Interpretation must be grounded in realities of patriarchal structures, especially in rural areas – Equality and social justice must guide application of Section 3 [Para 9]

Evidence Law – Contradiction Between Oral and Documentary Evidence – Discrepancy in two marriage certificates (Exhibits 7 & 8) and between testimony of registrar and father – High Court preferred father’s statement from prior 498A proceedings – Supreme Court held such evidence loses value post-acquittal and cannot outweigh registrar’s record – Registrar’s explanation of clerical error credible – Findings of lower court restored [Paras 4.5–8]

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 227 – High Court’s interference with concurrent findings of lower courts – Court held such superintendence must not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or substitute plausible view – High Court’s intervention unjustified – Order set aside [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondent directed to remit ₹7 lakhs and 30 bhories of gold (or equivalent monetary value) to Appellant – Payment to be made within 6 weeks with compliance affidavit – Interest @9% per annum if delayed.

Taxation Law - Excise Duty – Exemption – Use of Power – Clubbing of Units – Appellant sought to deny exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE to Unit No.1 alleging that entire manufacturing process, including stages at Unit No.2, involved power – Supreme Court held that even if units are separate entities, when their processes are integrally connected and collectively lead to manufacture, exemption is not available – Clubbing justified [Paras 11–13]

Manufacture – Definition – Integrated Process – Manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act includes all integral processes – Bleaching and mercerizing at Unit No.1, followed by squeezing and stentering at Unit No.2, and final bailing/packing at Unit No.1, formed one continuous manufacturing chain – Held: Use of power at any stage disqualifies exemption [Paras 10–12]

Interpretation of Notification – Beneficial Construction – Exemption Notification to be strictly construed – Since stentering process used power and was essential to final product, exemption not applicable – CESTAT erred in ignoring cumulative processing and focusing only on formal separation between units [Paras 10–13]

Retraction of Statements – Evidentiary Value – Statements of partners recorded during inspection were retracted six months later – Commissioner rightly held retractions were afterthoughts – CESTAT’s reliance on retracted affidavits erroneous [Para 4]

Judicial Review – Scope under Section 35-L(b) – CESTAT’s finding ignoring binding precedents and factual integration of processes not a “possible view” – Justified interference by Supreme Court – Order-in-Original restored [Paras 6, 13–14]

Decision: Appeals allowed – CESTAT judgment dated 05.10.2011 set aside – Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise restored – Respondents held liable for duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Owner – Conflict between prior developer and subsequent purchaser of land declared as slum area – Appellant sought mandamus for acquisition of subject property under 2015 CEO-SRA order – Held: As per Tarabai and Saldanha Real Estate rulings, acquisition under Section 14 cannot proceed unless owner’s preferential right is extinguished – Alchemi Developers, having purchased the property and proposed a valid scheme, retains such right – Mandamus declined [Paras 70–72, 77(1)]

Urban Planning – Recreational Ground Reservation – Subject land reserved for RG under 1991 Development Plan – Injunction order in Citispace v. State of Maharashtra restrained any slum schemes on RG lands till March 2022 – No acquisition action taken during this period – Held: Delay of seven years and subsequent transfer to lawful purchaser renders appellant’s demand for acquisition untenable [Paras 65–66, 68–71]

Slum Scheme – Rehabilitation and FSI – Appellant’s predecessor had included 34 slum dwellers from the subject land in its Annexure II – CEO-SRA in 2015 directed they be treated as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) – Appellant granted and utilized FSI equivalent to their rehabilitation – Held: Developer fully compensated and not entitled to further claims over land or FSI [Paras 41, 75, 77(3)]

Occupation Certificate – Entitlement Conditional on Handover – Respondent-SRA clarified that OC for final sale building would be issued upon handing over the dark green portion (2700 sq. mts.) as RG – Supreme Court directed SRA to issue OC within four weeks of such handover – Held: Appellant has no obligation to hand over subject land excluded from scheme [Paras 73–74, 77(2)]

Developer Conduct – Attempt at Backdoor Entry – Developer failed to act on 2015 order for seven years – Did not purchase land or perfect title – Slum dwellers already relocated – Held: Appellant cannot claim rights merely by rehabilitating slum dwellers without legal title – Rights now vest with Alchemi Developers as lawful owner [Paras 22–24, 69–72]

Land Use – Prohibition on Construction – Subject land to be used only as Recreational Ground – Statement by SRA confirmed no construction permitted – Court directed Alchemi Developers not to construct and to maintain land as RG – Order binding on successors and assigns [Paras 76, 77(4)]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No mandamus for acquisition – Appellant entitled to OC only upon handing over 2700 sq. mts. RG land – Subject property to remain RG with no construction – Appellant fully compensated via FSI – No costs.

Criminal Law – Discharge – Section 227 CrPC – Discharge granted – Appellant accused of restraining complainant from entering a property during a civil dispute and capturing her photos – High Court upheld dismissal of discharge – Supreme Court held that strong suspicion necessary for framing charges must be based on legally admissible material – Observed that complainant refused to make any judicial statement – Chargesheet lacked supporting evidence – Held: Allegations did not constitute offences under Sections 341, 354C, or 506 IPC – Discharge allowed [Paras 14-27].

Criminal Law – Section 354C IPC – Voyeurism – Ingredients not satisfied – No allegation in FIR that complainant was engaged in a ‘private act’ as defined under statute – FIR and chargesheet silent on essential ingredients – Held: Allegation of photographing complainant in public space without consent does not meet threshold for voyeurism [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law – Section 506 IPC – Criminal intimidation – FIR lacked any specific threat or utterance of injury to person or property – No statement recorded from complainant or witnesses – Held: Bare allegation of intimidation without details cannot attract offence under Section 506 IPC [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Section 341 IPC – Wrongful restraint – Complainant failed to establish any legal right to enter the premises – No evidence of tenancy – Complainant was only a prospective tenant – Obstruction by accused made in good faith under protection of civil court’s injunction order – Held: Offence under Section 341 IPC not made out [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Justice System – Abuse of Process – Filing of Chargesheets without Strong Suspicion – Court cautioned against mechanical filing of chargesheets and framing of charges where no prima facie case exists – Emphasised need to avoid clogging judicial system with trials destined for acquittal – Held: Prosecution must have reasonable prospect of conviction to proceed – Otherwise, fair process compromised [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant discharged from G.R. Case No. 223 of 2020 arising from FIR No. 50 of 2020 – No offences under Sections 341, 354C, 506 IPC made out.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Blanket Protection from Arrest – High Court, while refusing to quash FIR under Article 226, granted protection from arrest till filing of charge sheet – Held: Self-contradictory and impermissible – Once FIR is not quashed, High Court cannot mechanically grant anticipatory-bail-like protection in writ jurisdiction – Such directions prejudice investigation and violate settled law [Paras 5–7].

Article 226 – Scope – High Court’s power to grant pre-arrest protection is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly – Cannot be used to bypass statutory scheme of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Persons seeking protection must approach Sessions Court first – Blanket orders of “no arrest/no coercive steps” are wholly impermissible, as reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure [Paras 7–7.1].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Directions restraining arrest during entire investigation, despite not quashing FIR, amount to unjustified interference – No rationale in protecting accused while simultaneously directing expeditious investigation – Orders undermine fairness and efficacy of investigation [Paras 5–6].

Remand – Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders dated 16.06.2025 and 15.07.2025 – Matters remitted to High Court to reconsider quashing petitions on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations – Interim protection to continue until petitions are decided, to avoid prejudice [Paras 8–11].