Maintenance – Section 12 DV Act – Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112 IEA – DNA Test – Child's Maintenance Denied – Appellant-mother, employed as domestic help, married the respondent on 2nd March 2016; child born 1st April 2016 – Respondent sought DNA test to establish paternity; report dated 8th May 2017 concluded respondent is not the biological father – Trial Court and First Appellate Court denied maintenance to the child; High Court affirmed denial of child's maintenance but remanded appellant's own maintenance claim for fresh consideration – Appeal before Supreme Court dismissed [Paras 2–5, 10].

Section 112 IEA – Presumption of Legitimacy – DNA Report – Evolution of Judicial Opinion – Section 112 creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage unless non-access is proved – DNA test not contemplated when section was enacted – Held: Where a DNA test has been conducted on court direction, its report is on record, and has attained finality without any challenge by the party in whose favour the presumption operates, the position in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576 applies; the DNA report prevails over the statutory presumption – Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773 distinguished as it addressed the anterior question of whether a DNA test ought to be ordered at all [Paras 6–10].

Child Welfare – Directions to State – Secretary, Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi directed to depute an experienced person to visit the residence of the appellant and ascertain the wellbeing of the child in terms of education, nutrition, health and basic material needs; remedial measures to be taken wherever found lacking [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order denying maintenance to the child upheld – Matter of appellant's own maintenance to be decided afresh by Trial Court as directed by High Court – Secretary, Women and Child Development, Delhi directed to assess child's wellbeing and take remedial measures.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Prosthetic Limb – Restitutio in Integrum – Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Appellant's right leg was crushed and amputated below the knee in a motor accident on 02.05.2007 caused by a bus of Haryana Roadways – Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,73,211/- and High Court enhanced it to Rs. 13,02,043/- — Neither Tribunal nor High Court awarded any compensation under the head of prosthetic limb — Held: Appellant is entitled to compensation for purchase and maintenance of prosthetic limb on the principle of restitutio in integrum — Compensation further enhanced; total additional amount of Rs. 36,20,350/- directed to be paid by insurance company [Paras 2–37].

Prosthetic Limb – Computation – Standard Formula – Life Span of Limb and Claimant – The Court is not bound by the abysmally low rates prescribed in the Government Notification — Claimant is entitled to choose a private centre for procuring prosthetic limb and it is no answer for the defendant to point to cheaper options — Assumed life span of claimant fixed at 70 years — Life span of one prosthetic limb taken as five years — Appellant was 32 years old at time of accident; accordingly entitled to seven prosthetic limbs — Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded per limb on a standard basis totalling Rs. 21,00,000/- — Maintenance cost awarded at Rs. 15,000/- per annum i.e. Rs. 75,000/- per five-year block; consolidated sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded for maintenance till assumed life span — Henceforth, all claims under the head of prosthetic limb/artificial limb shall be accompanied by price quotations from at least two or three service providers to enable Tribunal to make informed assessment [Paras 18–33].

Just Compensation – Loss of Future Income – Functional Disability – Monthly income of appellant as a heavy vehicle driver accepted at Rs. 6,000/- per month — Medical evidence (AW-2 Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma) confirmed appellant cannot drive heavy vehicles — Functional disability assessed at 100 per cent — Applying formula of Rs. 6,000 x 40% future prospects x 12 x 16 (multiplier), loss of future income computed at Rs. 16,12,800/- — Absence of documentary evidence not fatal where claim is reasonable considering occupation and year of accident — Compensation under this head enhanced by Rs. 8,02,368/- over High Court's award [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced under the following heads over and above High Court's award: loss of future income Rs. 8,02,368/-; loss of income during treatment period Rs. 18,000/-; prosthetic limb including maintenance Rs. 26,00,000/-; litigation cost Rs. 2,00,000/- — Total additional amount of Rs. 36,20,350/- (rounded off) directed to be paid by Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 within four weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum — No order as to costs [Paras 37–39].

Land Law – Reclassification of Revenue Land – Public Utility Land – Void Patta – Section 132, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Subject land in District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, recorded as Category-6 (barren/non-agricultural land including khalihan and pasture land) in khatauni – Sub-Divisional Officer reclassified land as Category-5 (cultivable land) vide order dated 31.10.1992 and pattas granted in favour of appellant – Consolidation Officer subsequently expunged appellant's name from revenue records – High Court dismissed writ petition holding land to be public utility land under Section 132 of the Abolition Act – Held: Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to reclassify land falling within the prohibitory ambit of Section 132; patta granted in favour of appellant void ab initio; appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 10, 18, 30, 37].

Jurisdiction – Power of Sub-Divisional Officer – Paragraph Ka-155-Ka, U.P. Land Records Manual – Appellant contended that Paragraph Ka-155-Ka, Clause (9) empowers the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer to transfer land from one category of khata to another – Held: The provision only regulates entries pertaining to the tenure of khatedars already recorded in revenue records and does not authorise any change in the category of the land itself – Reliance on the said provision to justify re-categorisation of land from Category-6 to Category-5 is misconceived and untenable [Para 28].

Statutory Interpretation – Prohibition Cannot Be Circumvented Indirectly – Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum – Section 132 of the Abolition Act expressly prohibits conferment of bhumidhari rights in respect of public utility land including pasture land and khalihan – Power to alter land category vests exclusively in the State Government under Section 117(6) read with Section 77(2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, subject to stringent safeguards – Allowing subordinate revenue officers to reclassify such land through administrative entries would render the statutory prohibition nugatory – Held: What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly [Para 29].

Bhumidhari Rights – Public Utility Land – Asami Patta – Section 132, 195 of the Abolition Act – Bhumidhari rights cannot accrue in respect of land falling under Section 132 – At best, such land may be temporarily settled by way of an Asami patta limited to five years under Rule 176-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 – Even assuming a valid patta had been granted, it would stand expired upon completion of the five-year period [Para 25].

Res Judicata – Earlier Proceedings Under Section 198(4) – No Adjudication on Merits – Earlier application seeking cancellation of pattas was rejected by the Additional Collector on 19.08.1994 solely on the ground that execution of pattas was not established – No adjudication on the validity or legality of the pattas on merits – Revision also dismissed without entering into merits – Held: Since the existence and legality of the pattas were never finally adjudicated, the principle of res judicata has no application [Paras 33–36].

Protection of Community Land – Public Welfare – Consolidation Proceedings Cannot Circumvent Statutory Protections – Communal resources such as khalihan and pasture land constitute material assets of the community essential for ecological balance and public welfare – Consolidation proceedings cannot be employed as a vehicle to divert public utility land to private individuals through administrative manipulation – Held: Diversion of public utility land through administrative processes cannot be countenanced by law [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Consolidation Officer expunging appellant's name from revenue records upheld – Patta granted in favour of appellant declared void ab initio – No orders as to costs.

Prisoners with Disabilities – Constitutional Rights – RPwD Act, 2016 – High-Powered Committee – Directions Extended to All States and UTs – Petition raising issues of rights, detention conditions, and safeguards for disabled prisoners – Court previously issued directions in L. Muruganantham (2025) 10 SCC 401 for identification, accessible infrastructure, healthcare, assistive devices, staff training, accessibility audits, and compliance reporting – Present order extends those directions to all States and UTs and issues further directions – Held: Issues more effectively addressed through High-Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 317 [Paras 1–6].

Grievance Redressal – Inclusive Education – Section 89 RPwD Act – Enhanced Visitation – Additional directions issued: (a) robust, independent and accessible grievance redressal mechanism for disabled prisoners; (b) inclusive education facilities within prison; (c) Section 89 of RPwD Act made applicable to prison establishments; (d) States/UTs to indicate structured mechanism for provision of assistive devices and mobility aids; (e) enhanced visitation rights for prisoners with benchmark disabilities [Para 3].

High-Powered Committee – Mandate Expanded – Compliance Mechanism – Issues in present proceedings entrusted to High-Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma (supra) – Committee empowered to issue directions to State/UT departments, formulate action plan for assistive devices, seek expert assistance, and submit consolidated status report within four months – Expenses to be borne by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment – All States/UTs to file compliance affidavits within six weeks [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Matter referred to High-Powered Committee – States and UTs directed to file compliance affidavits within six weeks – Registry directed to transmit copy of order to Chairperson of High-Powered Committee – Matter listed on 1st September 2026 along with W.P. (C) No. 1082 of 2020.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Composite Commercial Arrangement – Appellant-company sold its commercial IT building "Digital Zone-I" to respondents pursuant to negotiations culminating in a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) dated 17.03.2023 – Eight sale deeds were executed on 03.04.2023 and registered on 19.04.2023 – Appellant filed suit for mandatory injunction to enforce MoA and recover balance consideration of Rs. 53 crores, alternatively seeking reconveyance – Respondents filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint – Trial court rejected the application holding plaint disclosed cause of action – High Court in revision allowed rejection on grounds that MoA was not a concluded contract and suit was undervalued – Held: Plaint read holistically discloses a triable cause of action arising from a composite commercial arrangement; High Court committed error in conducting a mini-trial at the threshold stage [Paras 2–29].

Cause of Action – Holistic Reading of Plaint – Test under Order VII Rule 11 – Court must take averments in the plaint in their entirety along with documents relied upon; it cannot isolate a sentence or passage – Whether MoA constitutes a concluded contract is a matter for trial; any finding at the threshold amounts to premature adjudication – Plaint pleaded sequence of material facts including negotiations, WhatsApp communications, incorporation of SPVs, partial implementation through sale deeds, subsistence of reciprocal obligations, and alleged breach — these facts constitute a complete and intelligible cause of action warranting a full-fledged trial [Paras 17–29].

Court Fees – Undervaluation – Mandatory Opportunity to Cure – Order VII Rule 11(b) and (c) CPC – Rejection of plaint on ground of undervaluation or deficit court fee requires a two-step process: (i) court must first form opinion that relief is undervalued or court fee is insufficient, and (ii) must afford plaintiff an opportunity to correct valuation and pay requisite fee within time fixed — only upon non-compliance can rejection ensue — High Court erred in rejecting plaint outrightly without fixing proper valuation or granting opportunity to cure — deficiency in court fee is a curable defect and does not render suit non-maintainable at threshold [Paras 32–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned order of High Court quashed and set aside — Trial court directed to afford appellant opportunity to correct valuation and pay requisite court fees within time to be fixed — No order as to costs [Para 36–37].

Foreign Judgment – Enforcement – Section 13 CPC read with Section 44A – Summary Judgment – Natural Justice – Triable Issues – English Court passed summary judgment against respondent after refusing leave to defend, arising from a share purchase and co-operation agreement and subsequent guarantee invoked under an external commercial borrowing facility – Division Bench of Delhi High Court refused enforcement holding the judgment violated Section 13 CPC – Supreme Court upheld refusal – Held: Summary disposal of a claim in the presence of bona fide triable issues supported by contemporaneous documents constitutes a judgment not rendered "on the merits" within the meaning of Section 13(b) CPC; and denial of leave to defend despite triable issues violates natural justice under Section 13(d) CPC [Paras 2, 40–53, 86].

Merits of Foreign Judgment – Summary Jurisdiction – Balance Sheets – Minutes of Board Meetings – Respondent raised three oral agreement defences, supported by balance sheets and board minutes signed by appellant's nominee director reflecting no subsisting liability – English Court refused leave to defend and proceeded summarily – Held: When assertions are supported by contemporaneous documents carrying statutory presumptive value under Sections 194, 210, 211 and 215 of the Companies Act, 1956, and oral evidence could reasonably be expected at trial, it is not open to the court to dispose of the matter summarily – Respondent was foreclosed without full opportunity [Paras 44–53].

Section 13 CPC – Principles Restated – Exceptions (a) to (f) – English Court was a court of competent jurisdiction under clauses 12.5, 31.1 and 31.2 of the Loan Agreement – No fraud made out – Judgment fails tests under Sections 13(b), 13(c), 13(d) and 13(f) – Failure to give effect to statutory permissions and conditions of Indian foreign exchange law attracts Section 13(c) – Enforcement contrary to binding RBI conditions brings decree within Section 13(f) [Para 86].

Foreign Exchange – Section 47 FERA – Distinction Between Institution of Proceedings and Enforcement – RBI Conditions – Though Section 47(3) of FERA does not bar legal proceedings to determine liability, sub-section (3)(b) imposes an absolute embargo on taking steps for enforcement of any decree without prior permission of the Central Government/RBI – Held: Permission of RBI is a sine qua non before any step in enforcement can be initiated – Conditional permission granted by RBI on 03.09.1997 stipulating "no liability whatsoever will extend to the Indian Company" does not constitute an absolute bar to enforcement for all time, but RBI's approval is a mandatory precondition before execution steps are commenced – Judgment of High Court reversed on this principle of law [Paras 54–83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Foreign judgment held unenforceable under Section 44A CPC as it falls foul of exceptions under Sections 13(b), 13(c), 13(d) and 13(f) of CPC – No order as to costs.

Municipal Law – Layout Plan – Incorporation of Private Plots – Division Bench Exceeded Scope – Appellants held registered title to 1600 sq. yards of land in Green Park Extension Colony, New Delhi, originally earmarked for a High School in the 1958 layout plan but de-reserved in 1969 owing to the plot being only 1600 sq. yards against the minimum required area of approximately 4783.96 sq. yards for a High School – De-reservation was never challenged and attained finality – Appellants' predecessors-in-interest secured decrees of permanent injunction against the MCD from civil courts in 1988 restraining interference with their possession – MCD's appeals against the said decrees were dismissed for delay by the Additional District Judge in 1992, and second appeals were also dismissed by the High Court in 1992 – Thereafter, the land changed hands through registered sale deeds, ultimately vesting in the appellants – Held: The findings of the civil court on ownership and possession, having been affirmed through dismissal of the MCD's appeals at every stage, attained finality and could not be unsettled by the Division Bench in writ proceedings [Paras 3–9, 23–24].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Title Not in Issue – The appellants filed a writ petition before the Single Judge solely for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to incorporate their plots in the layout plan of the colony – The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the prayer for incorporation within 60 days – In the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation, the Division Bench traversed beyond the scope of the appeal and rendered observations questioning the appellants' title, holding that the Corporation acted as custodian of public interest over land originally reserved for a public purpose – Held: The Division Bench was not justified in delving into the issue of title, which was neither the subject matter of the writ petition nor raised before the Single Judge; the scope of adjudication was confined to the limited direction issued by the Single Judge [Paras 17, 29, 32].

Finality of Civil Court Decrees – Entry in Property Register Insufficient – A mere entry in the immovable properties register of the MCD does not constitute valid proof of title; the Corporation never asserted title over the subject plots before any forum except through such register entry – The Division Bench's finding that the respondent-Corporation was the custodian of public interest over the land was wholly perverse and unsupported by tangible evidence – The fact that the land was de-reserved in 1969, combined with its passage through multiple registered conveyances and the long-standing possession of the appellants, renders the Division Bench's observations regarding public purpose unsustainable on the face of the record [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.04.2019 set aside – Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2016 restored – Respondent-Corporation directed to consider the appellants' application for incorporation of their plots in the layout plan of the colony within 60 days by passing a speaking order – The disposition shall not be influenced by observations made in the Division Bench's order or in this order – No costs [Paras 33–35].

Service Law – Recruitment – Essential Qualification – Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Prescribed Experience – The Board issued Advertisement No. 3001-3010 dated 21.07.2016 for one unreserved post of Computer Hardware Engineer on contract basis, prescribing as an essential qualification a B.E./B.Tech in Electronics Telecommunication/IT with at least five years' experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance in a company of repute, with preference to be given to candidates with an M.Tech degree – The selected candidate Himakshi possessed an M.Tech degree but had only approximately one year of work experience at the relevant date; the unsuccessful candidate Rahul had approximately six years of experience but possessed only a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications – Himakshi secured the highest marks in the written test and personal interview combined – Held: A preference for higher qualification operates only within the zone of candidates who have already fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria; it does not enlarge or modify the field of eligibility itself — the stage of extending preference arises only after a candidate satisfies the essential qualifications, and where a candidate does not meet the threshold requirement of eligibility, the question of extending preference does not arise [Paras 5–8, 21–25].

Power of Relaxation – Must Be Consciously Exercised in Writing – Rule 18 of the R&P Rules confers power upon the Board to relax any provision for reasons to be recorded in writing; Clause 2 preceding Rule 7 permits relaxation of age and experience when a candidate is otherwise well qualified — however, the mere existence of the power of relaxation does not obviate the manner of its exercise — relaxation must be exercised consciously by the recruiting agency, for reasons recorded in writing, upon due consideration of the nature of the requirement and suitability of the candidate — on a call for records by this Court, no material was produced disclosing any specific decision granting relaxation in favour of the selected candidate; the record of the Committee was silent except as to marks secured — absence of any deliberation or reasoning reinforces that selection was effected without due application of mind and without granting relaxation [Paras 28–37, 39].

Equity Cannot Override Breach of Essential Qualification – The selected candidate was regularised in service in 2019 and has continued in service on account of the stay granted by this Court — it was urged that long continuance in service, absence of mala fides and equities crystallised over time warranted protection of her appointment — Held: Equitable consideration is not a matter of right and is discretionary; it cannot be invoked to dilute or override essential eligibility requirements forming the basis of the selection process — the cases in which this Court extended equitable protection involved deficiencies that were either marginal or capable of being cured through service on the post itself — in the present case, the defect goes to the root of eligibility; the requisite experience of five years in computer manufacturing/maintenance in a company of repute is of a specialised and external nature which cannot be acquired by serving as a Computer Hardware Engineer — accordingly, inherent illegality arising from contravention of the R&P Rules cannot be dispensed with by equitable considerations [Paras 41–49].

Fresh Selection Process – No Direction for Appointment of Unsuccessful Candidate – None of the candidates who appeared for the selection possessed the required experience in a computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute as specifically prescribed; the unsuccessful candidate's experience was as a Senior Technical Assistant, Project Associate and Additional Programme Officer in public institutions, and the selected candidate's experience was as a Vocational Trainer (Telecom) in a government school — the selection process itself was vitiated for failure to scrutinise essential eligibility at the threshold — a direction to appoint Rahul would amount to substituting one illegality with another — mere participation in the selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment [Paras 50–54].

Decision: Both Civil Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld – Selection and appointment of Himakshi not sustained in law – No direction for appointment of the unsuccessful candidate Rahul or any other candidate – Respondent Board at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for selection to the post strictly in accordance with the R&P Rules – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 56–59].

Criminal Law - Contempt of Courts – Suo Motu Cognizance – Advocate's Press Conference – Allegations Against Sitting Judge – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant-advocate held a press conference making insinuations and casting aspersions against a sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, alleging her disqualification from hearing a matter on the ground that her sister was an accused in an FIR – Chief Justice took suo motu cognizance, constituted a five-Judge Bench, and issued a show cause notice – High Court rejected appellant's application for impleadment of the said Judge as a party-respondent, and registered additional contempt proceedings based on scandalous statements made in the interim application itself – Supreme Court, finding no ground for interference at this stage, dismissed the appeals and requested the High Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 2-3, 9-17, 35-38].

Judicial Independence – Public Confidence – Duty of Advocates – Prohibition on Scandalising the Court – An advocate, as an officer of the Court, bears a heightened obligation to conduct himself with restraint, sobriety and fidelity to professional ethics both within and outside the courtroom – Carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise proceedings or scandalise the institution or its Judges is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate – Grievances against judicial orders must be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate forums, not through public commentary capable of influencing perception about the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 26-34].

Impleadment of Sitting Judge in Contempt Proceedings – Permissibility – A person who merely furnishes information to the Chief Justice cannot be construed as a complainant, nor can such person be regarded as a necessary or proper party in contempt proceedings – Prayer for impleadment of the concerned Judge rightly rejected [Para 13].

Professional Misconduct – Jurisdiction of High Court vis-à-vis Bar Council – Appellant contended that finding of professional misconduct recorded against sixteen advocates by the High Court was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the power to initiate and adjudicate disciplinary proceedings against advocates is exclusively vested in the State Bar Council/Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961 – The Court left the issue open to be examined by the High Court in accordance with law [Para 21].

Precedents – Scope of Bona Fide Legal Defence in Contempt – Appellant contended that decisions in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P. and C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta no longer hold the field in view of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar and In re: C.S. Karnan, and that raising such legal submissions in defence cannot constitute contempt – Court declined to express any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues to be independently adjudicated by the High Court [Paras 19-20, 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court requested to proceed expeditiously and adjudicate all issues on merits independently – Observations confined to prima facie consideration for disposal of appeals and not to be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.