The bone of contention was 11 questions allegedly sourced from higher secondary NCERT textbooks, breaching the notification’s stipulation for Class 10-level comprehension, logical reasoning, and quantitative aptitude. Petitioners claimed this skewed fairness, impacting cut-offs and selections.

Dismissing these arguments, the court drew a firm line on judicial overreach. It affirmed CAT’s prior dismissal, stating that competitive exam disputes warrant narrow scrutiny. Only proven malice or gross illegality invites intervention; mere disagreement with experts does not suffice.

UPSC bolstered its defense with an expert panel’s findings, which validated every challenged item. ‘Mathematics queries matched matriculation standards, and all content aligned with notified parameters,’ the report stated. The judges concurred: ‘Re-litigating academic judgments exceeds our mandate.’

Procedural fairness further doomed the petition. The court highlighted the absence of selected candidates as parties, noting that remedies like merit revisions would upend finalized appointments. ‘No order affecting vested rights passes without audi alteram partem,’ it ruled.

As CSE 2023’s cycle—from prelims to final allocations—stands concluded, the bench prioritized systemic stability. This decision signals to aspirants: challenge boldly, but respect institutional expertise and timelines. UPSC’s rigorous objection mechanism, it seems, holds judicial water.

The court further elaborated that when a video cassette, allegedly containing obscene scenes, is presented as evidence in a prosecution under Section 292 of the IPC, the court must assess whether the scenes are lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest, or tend to excite lust, or deprave and corrupt the viewer’s mind.

The case involved Harikumar, who operated a video shop in Kottayam. He was accused of possessing ten obscene video cassettes. Following the seizure of the cassettes, the trial court found the accused guilty under sections 292(2)(a), (c), and (d) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of 2,000 rupees. The court later reduced the sentence to one year and maintained the fine. Challenging these orders, Harikumar filed a review petition in the High Court, arguing that the magistrate had not viewed the actual content of the video cassettes alleged to contain obscene material. The case relied solely on eyewitness testimonies and investigation reports, without considering the video content. The High Court clarified that video cassettes are considered primary evidence under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court ruled that direct examination of the cassette by the court is mandatory when a video cassette is claimed to contain obscene content. The High Court clarified that the testimony of police officers and other witnesses can confirm certain findings, but it cannot substitute the direct examination that must be conducted by the court. The court concluded that Harikumar’s conviction could not be considered legally sustainable, as neither the lower court nor the appellate court had examined the cassettes themselves. Consequently, Harikumar’s conviction and sentence were quashed.

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai indicated his intention to examine the matter of relocating stray dogs within Delhi-NCR. During a Wednesday hearing, a petition advocating for the regular sterilization and vaccination of stray animals was presented before his bench. CJI Gavai responded by saying, “I will look into it,” signaling his commitment to thoroughly consider the issues raised. It is uncertain whether the Chief Justice’s statement specifically referred to the 2024 petition or the recent Supreme Court decision that sparked criticism from animal welfare groups and NGOs.