PIL - Disability Rights – Constitutional Interpretation – RPwD Act – Judicial Directions – Court Declares Accessibility a Constitutional Mandate – The Court held that disability is not a deficit but a form of diversity – Failure to provide accessible systems is a constitutional violation – Courts must uphold inclusive frameworks to ensure dignity, autonomy, and equality for persons with disabilities [Paras 1–5, 27–35].

Institutional Care – Systemic Reforms – State Failure in Compliance – Directions Issued – The Court noted longstanding non-compliance by several States and UTs with orders concerning implementation of the RPwD Act – Directed nationwide monitoring through National Law Universities under “Project Ability Empowerment” to audit care institutions and recommend systemic reforms [Paras 6–11, 36–47].

Care Institutions – Monitoring Mechanism – Project Ability Empowerment – Eight National Law Universities assigned regional jurisdiction to inspect institutions housing persons with cognitive disabilities – Detailed thematic parameters outlined including resident profiling, health care, rehabilitation, education, infrastructure, and grievance redressal – Directions given for detailed report within six months [Paras 36–38, 47].

International Law – UNCRPD and Other Treaties – Interpretation and Application – The Court relied heavily on the UNCRPD and international human rights conventions to affirm the dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities – Recognised the obligation of State parties to ensure community-based care, deinstitutionalisation, and accessibility [Paras 25–34].

Reservation Policy – Section 34 RPwD Act – Upward Migration for Meritorious PwD Candidates – Discriminatory Practice Condemned – The Court highlighted denial of “upward migration” to meritorious PwD candidates in employment, calling it hostile discrimination – Directed Union of India to explain if corrective action has been taken – Held: Reservations must reach the genuinely disadvantaged, and merit-based PwD candidates should not be counted against reserved seats [Paras 48–54].

Final Decision – Monitoring Mandated – Central and State Authorities Directed to Cooperate – Court directed constitution of “Project Ability Empowerment” and ordered all stakeholders including District Magistrates, Social Welfare Departments, and Ministry of Social Justice to fully support the monitoring – Directed interim funding of ₹25 lakhs per NLU and fixed deadline for report submission – Matters listed for further monitoring on 13th March, 2026 [Paras 44–47, 55–57].

Civil Law – Counter-Claim – Maintainability – Defendant no.2 sought to file a counter-claim for specific performance of an agreement dated 21.10.2011 and partition of property after issues had already been framed in the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction – Trial Court rejected the application citing bar under Limitation Act and principles of CPC, especially Order VIII Rule 6A – High Court reversed the order, allowing the counter-claim citing appointment of Nazir (court officer) as triggering fresh cause of action – Supreme Court held that counter-claim directed solely against a co-defendant is impermissible – Further, counter-claim filed after framing of issues and considerable delay defeats the purpose of speedy trial and is barred by limitation – Held: High Court erred in reversing Trial Court – Counter-claim not maintainable [Paras 7, 8, 14, 17–24, 26, 27].

Counter-Claim – Against Co-Defendant – Not Maintainable – Defendant no.2 filed counter-claim primarily seeking specific performance of agreement executed by original defendant no.1 (now deceased) and secondarily sought partition – No substantial relief was claimed against the plaintiff – Supreme Court reiterated law laid down in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar and Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske – Counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff; relief solely against a co-defendant not maintainable – Counter-claim cannot convert the suit into an interpleader action between defendants [Paras 17–23].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Counter-Claim – Issues were framed on 12.02.2019 – Counter-claim filed on 26.07.2021 – Specific performance sought for agreement dated 21.10.2011 – Defendant no.2 remained inactive despite knowledge of plaintiff’s challenge to agreement in 2012 and death of original vendor in 2013 – Cause of action arose in 2012 but counter-claim filed 9 years later – Barred under Article 54 of Limitation Act – Held: Limitation equally applies to counter-claims – Filing after framing of issues not permissible as per Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri – Trial Court rightly dismissed application [Paras 14, 24–25].

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Powers under Article 227 – High Court interfered with Trial Court’s discretionary order under supervisory jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that High Court failed to establish jurisdictional error – Exercise of Article 227 cannot override findings of Trial Court based on law and limitation – Trial Court correctly applied CPC provisions and precedents – High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction [Paras 13, 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.01.2023 set aside – Order of Trial Court dismissing defendant no.2’s application to amend written statement and file counter-claim restored – No order as to costs [Para 27–28].

Tenancy Law - Landlord–Tenant – Challenge to Landlord’s Title – Estoppel against Tenant – Relinquishment Deed of 1953 (Exh. P-18) – Findings of Courts Below Perverse – Tenant inducted in 1953 by Ramji Das under a valid relinquishment deed executed by Sua Lal; rent paid to Ramji Das for decades and, after his death, to the landlady’s husband – Held: a tenant who entered under the landlord and paid rent for over half a century cannot dispute the landlord’s title; courts below ignored material evidence, warranting interference [Paras 5–7, 10–12].

Will/Probate – Production of Probate Order at Appellate Stage – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Proof of Ownership in Eviction Suits – High Court erred in refusing to take on record the 09.02.2018 probate order (Probate Case No. 8/2013) – Probate, though not mandatory, imparted legal sanctity to the Will bequeathing the shop to the plaintiff; in eviction suits, ownership need not be established as strictly as in a title suit – Rejection of additional evidence unsustainable [Paras 8–10].

Attornment/Notice – Registered Notice (Exhs. P-9 to P-11) – Presumption of Service – Trial court erred in discarding registered notice for want of acknowledgment – First appellate court (initial round) rightly noted presumption of receipt when sent to correct address; notice conveyed bequest and assertion of ownership – Attornment established; no rent shown paid from January 2000 – Default proved [Paras 11–12].

Bona Fide Requirement – Expansion of Existing Family Business – Adjacent Premises – Landlady intended to join and expand husband’s sweets and savouries business; sons also involved – Need genuine; not disputed – Requirement established [Para 13].

Appellate Interference – Concurrent Findings – Perversity – Where courts below ignore material evidence and proceed on conjectures (suspicion about Will; ignoring relinquishment deed; overlooking presumption on registered notice), interference justified – Orders of trial court, first appellate court (on remand), and High Court set aside [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Relief/Decree – Eviction and Arrears – Suit decreed for eviction on grounds of rent default and bona fide need; arrears payable from January 2000 till delivery – Conditional protection: tenants may remain for six months subject to (i) undertaking within two weeks to vacate in six months and (ii) payment of arrears within one month; failing which, summary eviction permissible [Para 14–15].

Criminal Law - Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC - Forgery – Authorship and Chain of Custody – Sections 463, 464, 468 IPC – Conviction Unsustainable – Alleged tampered documents passed through hands of admission clerk, principal, and university before detection – Prosecution failed to prove appellant authored or had exclusive custody of forged documents – Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 13–14].

Handwriting/Forensic Proof – Absence of Expert Opinion – Visual Overwriting Inference Unsafe – Courts below wrongly relied solely on apparent overwriting without handwriting expert corroboration – Held: When authorship is central to establish guilt, failure to examine expert or direct witness is fatal to prosecution [Paras 9–10].

Mens Rea – Sections 420, 471 IPC – Intention to Cheat Not Proved – Documents scrutinized and stamped by college authorities – No evidence that appellant knew of tampering or had dishonest intention to secure admission – Mental element not established [Para 11].

Section 313 CrPC – Compound and Omnibus Questions – Prejudice Caused – Incriminating circumstances not fairly and distinctly put to accused – Violated valuable statutory right of defence – Reliance on such defective examination impermissible [Para 12].

Benefit of Doubt – Where two reasonable views possible, benefit goes to accused – Prosecution failed to prove exclusive control or authorship of forged documents – Conviction set aside [Paras 13–15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Sections 420 r/w 511, 468, and 471 IPC together with sentences set aside – Appellant acquitted [Para 15].

Criminal Law - Police Duty – Registration of FIR – Section 154 CrPC – Mandatory Nature – Police informed of MLC involving appellant (head injury from assault during riots) on 14.05.2023 but failed to register FIR – High Court erred in blaming victim’s family for not lodging report – Held: Once information of cognizable offence is received, FIR must be registered; dereliction of duty established [Paras 14–16, 18–19].

Constitutional Bench Precedent – Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Applied – Registration of FIR mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence; no preliminary inquiry permissible except in limited categories – Police failure in present case contrary to binding law [Paras 16–17].

Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant as Victim and Eyewitness – Aged 17 years – Claimed he witnessed fatal assault on Vilas Mahadevrao Gaikwad and was himself attacked by same assailants – Police ignored testimony and did not investigate identification of assailants – Failure undermined rule of law [Paras 12, 22].

Dereliction of Duty – Superintendent of Police – Section 154(3) CrPC – Appellant’s complaint dated 01.06.2023 ignored by SP, Akola – Failure to act or inquire despite statutory duty – Cause for serious concern; departmental and disciplinary proceedings directed [Paras 20–21].

Police Impartiality – Duty to Act Without Bias – Officers must shed religious/casteist prejudices – Failure to investigate properly in riot context indicates bias or gross negligence – Police must act as neutral guardians of law [Para 23].

Relief/Orders – Appeal Allowed – Direction to Secretary, Home Ministry, Maharashtra to constitute SIT of senior police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities – SIT to investigate appellant’s assault and related allegations by registering FIR – Disciplinary action against erring officers – Sensitization measures for police force mandated – SIT report to be filed before Supreme Court within 3 months [Paras 24–26].

Homicide – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sections 302 & 304 Part I IPC – Conviction Modified – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing his brother-in-law – Evidence showed prior incidents of harassment of appellant’s sister and parents by the deceased – On the day of incident, deceased allegedly attempted to assault appellant with stone outside hospital, triggering retaliation – Held: act not premeditated; chance encounter and grave provocation proved – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 16–20].

Grave and Sudden Provocation – Applicability – Test Applied – Court held that seeing the deceased immediately after assaults on sister (leading to her hospitalization) and on parents, coupled with sudden attack attempt, constituted grave and sudden provocation – Appellant’s loss of self-control justified conversion of conviction [Paras 17–19].

Confession and Admissions – Voluntariness – Sections 164 & 313 CrPC – Appellant consistently admitted killing in confessional and examination statements, but explained circumstances – Court relied on admissions along with corroborative evidence to accept provocation defence [Paras 8–9].

Sentencing – Young Age and Custody Undergone – Modification – Appellant had already undergone more than 12 years in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Release ordered [Paras 20–23].

POCSO Conviction – Interpretation of Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 6 POCSO – Conviction Modified – Appellant was convicted under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO for allegedly touching private parts of child – Medical evidence and victim’s consistent statements showed no penetration – Held: Offence does not meet threshold for penetrative sexual assault – Conviction under Section 6 POCSO and Section 376AB IPC set aside – Modified to conviction under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO [Paras 6–9].

Evidence – Consistency of Victim’s Statement – No Support for Penetration – Medical Report Neutral – Statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC, trial testimony, and FIR consistently alleged inappropriate touching but not rape – No element of penetration made out – Presumption by lower courts of penetrative assault held erroneous [Paras 6–8].

Sentencing – Sentence Reduced – Sentences Ordered to Run Concurrently – Modified sentence of 5 years RI under Section 354 IPC and 7 years RI under Section 10 POCSO directed to run concurrently – Fine of ₹50,000 upheld and to be paid as compensation to victim within 2 months [Para 9].

Decision – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Conviction under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO imposed – Sentence reduced – Appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Quashment of Proceedings – Educational institution accused of using a forged Fire NOC to secure recognition – National Building Code and writ directions established no Fire NOC was required for buildings below 15 metres – Held: Essential ingredient of dishonest or fraudulent inducement absent since recognition/renewal was not contingent on Fire NOC – Proceedings under Section 420 IPC quashed [Paras 5-11, 12-13, 16, 21-22].

Cheating – Ingredients – Deception vis-à-vis Inducement – Mere deception insufficient unless coupled with dishonest inducement causing wrongful gain or loss – Court reiterates that intention is the gist and the false representation must be material to the grant – As the alleged NOC was not a condition precedent, causative link between representation and administrative action missing – Outcome: No offence under Section 420 IPC made out – Reasoning draws from statutory definitions and precedents [Paras 12-16].

Forgery – Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC – Requirement of “making” a false document and mens rea – No material connecting the appellant to the creation of the alleged forged NOC – Original fabricated document not recovered – Without proof of making (Section 464 IPC) and requisite dishonest intent to cause wrongful loss/gain, offences under Sections 465/468/471 not attracted – Outcome: Forgery-based allegations unsustainable [Paras 18-20].

Administrative/Regulatory Compliance – National Building Code, 2016 – Fire NOC not necessary for educational buildings below 15 m – Appellant’s building 14.20 m – Prior writ order directed renewal of affiliation without insistence on Fire NOC – This regulatory framework undercuts the prosecution’s case on materiality and inducement – Outcome: Supports quashment [Paras 5-11, 16, 21].

Appellate Intervention – Scope at Quashing Stage – High Court erred by overlooking that uncontroverted allegations, read with the writ order and NBC norms, do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating/forgery – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and quashes proceedings – Decision: Appeal allowed, CC No. 303/2020 quashed [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Downgrade to Outraging Modesty – Appellant originally convicted under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a girl under 12 – Victim’s consistent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., her deposition during trial, and medical evidence did not establish penetration – Allegations limited to touching of private parts – Held: Ingredients of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(c) POCSO and Section 375 IPC not made out – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO set aside – Conviction modified to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO [Paras 3–9]

POCSO Act – Nature of Assault – Victim below 12 years – Where allegations and evidence prove non-penetrative touching with sexual intent, offence falls under Section 7 read with Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act – Section 3(c) not attracted in absence of penetration – Held: Alleged act amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) not penetrative sexual assault [Paras 6–8]

Sentencing – Modification of Sentence – Original sentence of 20 years RI under Section 6 POCSO Act modified to 5 years RI under Section 354 IPC and 7 years RI under Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentences to run concurrently – Fine of ₹50,000 retained as compensation to victim payable within two months [Para 9]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Conviction altered to Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act – Sentence reduced accordingly.