Constitution of India , Art.226— Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act (1 of 1996) , S.33— Civil Services Examination - Provision of Screen Reader Software - To visually impaired candidates - Court addressed grievances related to accessibility of public examinations for visually impaired candidates - Substantial part of the grievances had been duly alleviated because UPSC, had taken a conscious, progressive policy decision to extend facility of Screen Reader Software to visually impaired candidates across various examinations, recognizing their rights to equal opportunity - However, while policy decision was in place, mechanism and modalities for its effective implementation remained un-streamlined and un-operationalized - Laudable objective of accessibility must be translated into practical reality - Specific directions were issued to UPSC to ensure that its decision is effectively translated into action and rights of candidates belonging to the PwBD/PwD category are fully safeguarded.

(Paras91011)

(Para 9 10 11)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.227— Discharge - Offences under Ss.341, 354C, 506 of IPC - Allegation that accused intimidated complainant, who claimed to be tenant, by clicking her photographs without her consent thereby intruding her privacy and obstructed her entry into premises - Material showed that there was ongoing civil dispute between co-owners i.e. father and uncle of accused, and subsisting injunction order restraining induction of third parties - FIR and charge sheet were completely silent about the manner in which complainant was threatened or was watched or captured by the accused while she was engaging in a 'private act' so as to attract S.354C - No specific threat or intention to cause alarm to constitute S.506 - Ingredients of wrongful restraint under S.341 was also not made out, in absence of material on record to show that complainant was a tenant in the property at any point of time - On the date of the alleged offence, complainant had no right to enter the property - Thus, whatever accused did was to enforce what he bona fidely thought was his lawful right over property in terms of injunction order - Accused was discharged.

AIROnline 2024 CAL 34-Reversed(Paras202225262730)

(Para 20 22 25 26 27 30)

(A) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (25 of 1986) , S.3— Divorce of Muslim women - Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at time of divorce - Scope and object of 1986 Act is concerned with securing dignity and financial protection of Muslim women post her divorce which aligns with rights of a women under Art. 21 of Constitution - Construction of Act, therefore, must keep at forefront equality, dignity and autonomy and must be done in light of lived experiences of women where particularly in smaller towns and rural areas, inherent patriarchal discrimination is still order of day - Held, goods given by daughter's father at time of her marriage could be recovered by daughter under Act, 1986 after marriage ended in divorce.

Constitution of India , Art.21— CRR No.489/2019 , Dt/- 24.11.2022 (Cal)-ReversedCRAN No.9/2023 , Dt/- 31.01.2024 (Cal)-ReversedCRR No.489/2019, Dt/- 31.01.2024 (Cal)-Reversed(Para9)

(Para 9)

(B) Constitution of India , Art.136— Powers of Court - To interfere with findings of High Court - Criminal matter - Supreme Court under its plenary, Art.136 jurisdiction does not interfere with findings of High Court simply because there are two views possible - However in case of exception where High Court missed purposive construction goalpost and instead proceeded to adjudicate matter purely as civil dispute, supreme Court can interfere with findings of High Court.

(Para9)

(Para 9)

Central Excise Act (1 of 1944) , S.11A(1), S.2(f)— Demand of excise duty - Exemption from payment of duty - Claim for - Under a notification, on ground of processing without aid of power - Grey fabrics were bleached and mercerised at Unit No.1; wet fabrics transported to adjacent Unit No.2 for squeezing and stentering with aid of power; dry fabrics thereafter returned to Unit No.1 for bailing and clearance - Thereafter cotton fabrics were finally cleared - Both Units were together involved in the process of manufacture of cotton fabrics from grey fabrics - Entire process from receiving fabrics till their bailing/folding was a continuous process, same was completed with the aid of electricity - Hence, fact that Units undertaking these processes were exclusive to each other would hardly make any difference - CESTAT committed error in bifurcating continuous process of manufacture to conclude that each Unit though undertaking a distinct process of manufacture, activities of one Unit could not be clubbed with the other - Hence, Units were not entitled to claim any exemption under the said Notification - Demand, interest and penalty was validly imposed - Order demanding duty, was restored.

AIROnline 2017 SC 862-Distinguished(Paras11121314)

(Para 11 12 13 14)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.313— Examination of accused - Non-compliance with section - Accused persons were convicted for offences of house trespass, murder and voluntary causing hurt - However, statements of accused recorded under S.313 indicated that statements given by all accused persons were carbon copies of each other - Only two out of four questions were directedly related to sequence of events - Remaining questions were asked with reference to only bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued - Statement of accused revealed abject failure on part of Trial Court in complying with provisions of law - Matter remanded to Trial Court to recommence from stage of recording of S.313 CrPC statements.

(Paras 910)

(Para 9 10)