Constitutional Law – Right to Dignity and Hygiene – Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life includes the right to a hygienic environment, ensuring access to clean and safe toilet facilities – PIL filed to mandate the construction and maintenance of separate toilets for men, women, transgender persons, and persons with disabilities in all courts and tribunals – Held: Providing clean and hygienic toilets is a constitutional obligation under Articles 21, 47, and 48A – Directions issued to all High Courts and States/UTs to ensure compliance [Paras 1-9, 24-25].

Judicial Infrastructure – Construction and Maintenance of Toilets in Courts – PIL exposed deplorable conditions of existing toilet facilities in court premises, particularly at the District Court level – Lack of separate toilets for genders, poor maintenance, and inadequate accessibility for persons with disabilities highlighted – Held: High Courts and State Governments directed to construct and maintain toilets with appropriate facilities for all stakeholders, ensuring transparency in fund allocation and regular monitoring [Paras 7-9, 24-25].

Rights of Transgender Persons – Separate Toilets and Accessibility – Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and Rules, 2020 – Held: Provision of separate toilets for transgender persons is integral to protecting their dignity and addressing discrimination – High Courts directed to ensure adequate facilities, including gender-neutral toilets, with clear signage [Paras 8, 25].

Global Practices – Public Sanitation Standards – Comparison with international benchmarks such as Singapore’s Happy Toilet Programme, UK’s British Toilet Association, and Japan’s Universal Toilet Initiatives – Held: India must adopt global best practices to ensure public health and hygiene in judicial premises, incorporating eco-friendly and inclusive designs [Paras 8.18-8.23].

Cited Precedents – Judicial Recognition of Hygienic Sanitation as a Fundamental Right – Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990 – National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 – Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 – Bombay High Court in Milun Suryajani v. Pune Municipal Commissioner, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6256 – Additional references to global and national obligations for ensuring hygiene standards [Paras 8.12-8.16, 79-85].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Directions issued to High Courts, States, and UTs to construct and maintain separate, functional, and hygienic toilet facilities in all court premises within four months – Committees to be formed in High Courts to oversee implementation – Status report to be filed after four months [Paras 9-9.2.1].

Civil Procedure – Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC – Maintainability of Second Suit – Plaintiff filed a second suit for specific performance after a prior suit for permanent injunction – Issue regarding whether both suits were based on the same cause of action – Held: The second suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2 as the cause of action in the second suit arose from subsequent events and was distinct from the first suit’s cause of action – High Court rightly restored the plaint in the second suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-51, 75-92].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Principles of Cause of Action – Held: To invoke Order II Rule 2, the causes of action in both suits must be identical in substance, not merely overlapping – Reliefs in the second suit could not have been claimed in the first suit due to the impossibility of obtaining such relief at that time – Decisions of Rajasthan High Court in Ramjilal v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Court in National Security Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S.N. Jaggi, affirmed this principle [Paras 75-77, 86-87].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff's omission to seek relief in the first suit – Held: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) unless it is evident from the plaints of both suits that the omitted relief was based on the same cause of action – High Court’s restoration of the plaint in the second suit upheld [Paras 41, 44, 89].

Constitutional Right to Property – Article 300-A – Sale Agreement and Public Interest Litigation – Plaintiff’s agreement to sell was hindered by a government order prohibiting land transfers to third parties other than the appellant – The High Court’s subsequent quashing of the order provided a new cause of action for the plaintiff to pursue specific performance – Held: Constitutional rights under Article 300-A protected [Paras 43, 79-81, 85].

Cited Precedents – Applicability of Order II Rule 2 – Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78 – Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810 – Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 625 – Held: Causes of action must be materially distinct, and subsequent events can create new rights that justify a second suit [Paras 36-39, 86, 90].

Decision – Civil Appeals Nos. 372-373 of 2025 – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order restoring the plaint in the second suit affirmed – Plaintiff entitled to pursue the second suit for specific performance and related reliefs – Trial Court to decide on merits within six months [Paras 87-92].

Service Law – Promotion to District Judge – Merit-cum-Seniority – Suitability Test – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules – Appellants challenged the denial of promotion despite qualifying the suitability test, asserting that promotions based on a comparative merit list contradicted the governing rules – Supreme Court held: Promotions under the 65% quota must be based on suitability and not comparative merit – High Court’s decision quashed, and appellants entitled to promotion from the same date as their juniors promoted under the 30/05/2019 notification [Paras 1-6].

Suitability Test – Interpretation of Rules 4 and 5 of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules – Held: Rules prescribe that candidates securing a minimum of 40 marks are eligible for promotion – Comparative assessment is contrary to the merit-cum-seniority principle for the 65% promotional quota – Relying on Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta (2024 SCC Online SC 972), suitability should be judged individually and not by a merit list – Supreme Court affirmed appellants’ eligibility and ordered notional promotion with consequential benefits [Paras 4-6].

Promotion and Seniority – Retrospective Notional Promotion – Supreme Court directed the appellants’ promotion to be effective from the date their juniors were promoted under the disputed notification – Held: Appellants entitled to seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation but not back wages [Para 6].

Cited Precedents – Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat (2024 SCC Online SC 972) – Held: Promotions under the 65% quota are based on suitability and not comparative merit – Comparative merit assessment invalidates the distinction between the 65% and 10% promotional quotas – Case relied upon by the Court to grant relief to the appellants [Para 4].

Decision – Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025 – Appeal allowed – High Court of Jharkhand’s order set aside – Appellants granted notional promotion from the date of their juniors’ promotion with consequential service benefits excluding back wages [Paras 5-6].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Decree of Restitution – Applicability of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Whether a wife, despite not complying with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by the husband, is entitled to maintenance – Held: Non-compliance with such a decree does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance – It must be assessed whether she had valid and sufficient reasons to stay away from her husband – Conduct of the husband and circumstances causing mental cruelty were key factors – Reena suffered mistreatment, denial of basic amenities, and neglect during her miscarriage – Husband’s lack of bona fides and failure to pursue reconciliation or divorce underscored his attempt to evade responsibility – High Court erred in applying Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court’s maintenance order restored – Maintenance @ ₹10,000 per month upheld with arrears payable in installments.

Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Binding Effect in Maintenance Proceedings – Findings in the decree for restitution do not conclusively bind the Court in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance laws aim at social justice and provide independent remedies – Findings of the Civil Court can only be treated as relevant material but not as determinative of the wife’s right to maintenance – Differentiation between civil and maintenance proceedings emphasized.

Mental Cruelty – Evidence and Cumulative Assessment – Wife subjected to mental cruelty owing to the husband’s neglect and ill-treatment – Denial of basic facilities, refusal to bear medical expenses during her miscarriage, and lack of care and support cumulatively established mental cruelty – Reena’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home was justified under the circumstances – Mental cruelty assessed through cumulative conduct rather than isolated incidents.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Family Court’s maintenance order restored – Maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from 03.08.2019 reaffirmed – Arrears to be paid in three equal installments by December 2025 – No costs awarded.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 34(3) – Limitation and Condonation - Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Award – Filing After Court Reopening – The appellants challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA) on 04.07.2022, the date of court reopening after vacation – The 3-month limitation period expired on 29.05.2022, and the additional 30-day condonable period ended on 28.06.2022, during the court vacation – Held: Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies only to the "prescribed period" (3 months), not to the 30-day condonable period – Filing the petition after reopening did not extend the expired condonable period – High Court rightly dismissed the petition as time-barred [Paras 1.1, 13, 26.2, 28, 35.1–35.3].

Exclusion of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act – Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply where the Limitation Act governs the proceedings – The proviso to Section 10 excludes its application to acts or proceedings under the Limitation Act – Held: The appellants cannot benefit from Section 10 as the ACA is explicitly governed by the Limitation Act – The appeal against the High Court’s decision was rightly dismissed [Paras 29.3, 33–34, 35.4].

Application of the Limitation Act to Section 34 ACA – Section 43 of the ACA explicitly applies the Limitation Act to arbitration proceedings – Section 34(3) prescribes a 3-month limitation period and an additional 30-day condonable period – Held: The "prescribed period" under Section 4 of the Limitation Act refers to the 3-month period, not the additional 30 days – Courts cannot condone delays beyond the statutory limit, ensuring finality in arbitration awards [Paras 12, 18.1–18.2, 29.1, 35.1].

Judicial Suggestions for Reform – Observing the strict limitation framework under the ACA, the Court expressed concerns about the curtailment of remedies – Suggested uniform limitation periods across statutes with broader judicial discretion for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Called for legislative intervention to address genuine cases of delayed filing, such as due to illness or custody, to avoid injustice on technical grounds [Paras 36.1–36.6, 19–21].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The appellants’ Section 34 application was held to be time-barred, as it was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days after the 3-month limitation period – High Court's judgment affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 37–39].

Service Law – Promotion Criteria – Eligibility for Teaching Cadre – Dispute regarding promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Teaching Cadre of the Medical Education Services, Kerala – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision dismissing the claim of Dr. Jyotish against the promotion of Dr. Sharmad – Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the High Court erred in imposing additional requirements not specified in the governing rules – Held: Dr. Sharmad’s promotion was valid under the applicable recruitment rules [Paras 1, 10, 29, 30].

Recruitment Rules – G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 and G.O. dated 14th December, 2009 – The promotion criteria were governed by G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, which superseded all earlier rules regarding appointments in the Medical Education Services – High Court incorrectly excluded G.O. dated 14th December, 2009, which provided eligibility criteria – Held: G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 did not mandate five years’ post-M.Ch. experience for promotion to Associate Professor, and the High Court erred in reading such a requirement into it [Paras 4, 6, 9, 14, 20].

KS and SSR Rules – Rule 10(ab) and its Applicability – Rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR) applies only when recruitment rules are silent – G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 qualified as a “special rule” and explicitly governed the qualifications – Supreme Court held that Rule 10(ab) had no application as the G.O. contained specific provisions regarding experience – High Court erred in relying on Rule 10(ab) to invalidate the promotion of Dr. Sharmad [Paras 16-23].

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – Interpretation of Recruitment Rules – The phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree” was deliberately excluded in the qualifications for Teaching Cadre posts under G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 – Inclusion of this phrase for Administrative Cadre posts demonstrates a clear distinction between the two branches – Held: The absence of this stipulation for Teaching Cadre appointments was intentional, and the High Court’s contrary interpretation was erroneous [Paras 22, 26, 27].

Cited Precedents – Distinguishability and Application – Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya s/o Govindrao Karale – Held: Experience after qualification is generally required unless otherwise specified – Supreme Court found this case to favor Dr. Sharmad as G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 did not demand post-M.Ch. experience for promotion [Para 25] – Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Bihar – Held: Preference given to candidates with superspeciality qualifications if all other qualifications are equal – Supreme Court distinguished the case as Dr. Jyotish lacked the required experience as an Assistant Professor at the relevant time [Paras 27-28].

Decision – Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024 – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Tribunal’s decision restored, dismissing the claim of Dr. Jyotish – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 29-30].

Service Law – Promotion from Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professor – Dispute over the interpretation of required experience for promotion to Assistant Professor in Paediatrics – Tribunal upheld the requirement of three years’ physical teaching experience after acquiring a postgraduate qualification – High Court confirmed the applicability of Rule 10(ab) but set aside the Tribunal’s consequential directions – Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s interpretation of Rule 10(ab) and dismissed the High Court’s findings regarding review of promotions [Paras 32-38].

Decision – Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 2024 – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Original application dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 38-39].

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Act – Registration under Section 8 – Interpretation of Section 18 – Whether an MSME must register under Section 8 of the MSMED Act before the execution of a contract to seek remedies under Section 18 – Held: Registration under Section 8 is not a precondition to invoking Section 18 – Section 18 employs the phrase "any party to a dispute," which is not confined to registered suppliers – Registration is discretionary for micro and small enterprises, and an unregistered entity can still access remedies under the MSMED Act – Legislative intent and expert committee reports affirm the non-mandatory nature of registration – High Court's dismissal of the writ upheld, and reference to a larger bench ordered to clarify precedents – [Paras 14, 15, 27, 29].

Statutory Remedies – Facilitation Council’s Jurisdiction under MSMED Act – Role of Registration – Filing of a memorandum under Section 8 is discretionary and not a statutory requirement for dispute resolution under Section 18 – The Facilitation Council has jurisdiction over disputes irrespective of registration status – Legal precedent in Shanti Conductors case supports this interpretation – Remedies under Section 18 are intended to be broad and accessible – [Paras 14.1, 14.4, 14.9, 18].

Scope of Judicial Precedents – Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods Cases Distinguished – The issue of mandatory registration under Section 8 was not formulated, discussed, or decided in Silpi Industries or Mahakali Foods – Observations in these cases are sub silentio on this issue – Subsequent reliance on these cases does not establish binding precedent – Clarification by a larger bench necessary for consistency – [Paras 17, 19, 27].

Policy Objectives of MSMED Act – Access to Justice – Remedies under the MSMED Act should be interpreted expansively to uphold the Act's intent of promoting economic justice for micro and small enterprises – Limiting access to remedies by imposing registration as a prerequisite would undermine the statutory objectives – [Paras 14.7, 19].

Decision – Appeal Referred to Larger Bench for Clarity – Recognizing the need for clarity on precedential authority, the court directed that the appeal be referred to a three-judge bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the mandatory nature of Section 8 registration for invoking Section 18 remedies – [Para 29].

Decision: Reference to a three-judge bench – Appeal deferred for further consideration – No costs awarded.

Service Law - Interpretation of Recruitment Rules and Post-Qualification Experience - G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 - Absence of Post-Qualification Stipulation for Teaching Cadre - Whether Post-Qualification Experience Is Implied - Held: No - Executive order G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, governing Medical Education Service recruitment, does not stipulate post-qualification experience for Branch II Teaching Cadre positions, unlike Branch I Administrative Cadre - High Court erred in applying Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR when G.O. explicitly superseded earlier rules - Supreme Court reinstated Tribunal's dismissal of the original application challenging promotion to Associate Professor [Paras 12, 20-22, 29].

Golden Rule of Interpretation and Expressio Unius Principle - Experience Criteria in Recruitment Rules - Legislative Intent - Where rules explicitly differentiate qualifications for Administrative and Teaching Cadres, courts must uphold this distinction to respect legislative intent - The omission of post-qualification experience for Teaching Cadre in G.O. 07th April, 2008, is deliberate - The maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" applied to reject the inference of implied post-qualification experience for promotions under Branch II [Paras 20, 22, 26].

Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR - General Rule Versus Special Rules - Application of Recruitment Rules to Medical Education Service - Specific Government Order Supersedes General Rules - KS and SSR Rule 10(ab) does not override G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, which is a special rule for the Medical Education Service - The Tribunal's reliance on this distinction upheld - High Court's contrary interpretation overturned [Paras 20-22].

Precedential Value of Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods Cases - Distinguishing Factors - Court Clarifies Applicability - Cited precedents requiring post-qualification experience are inapplicable when rules governing specific services do not stipulate such requirements - Differentiation between general and special rule frameworks emphasized [Paras 24-26].

Decision - Appeals Allowed - High Court's Orders Set Aside - Tribunal’s Dismissal of Applications Restored - No Costs Awarded - The Court ruled in favor of Dr. Sharmad and Dr. Sheela T.A., reinstating their promotions and dismissing rival claims due to misinterpretation of applicable rules [Paras 29-39].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Set Aside - Section 143, Railways Act, 1989 – Unauthorised Ticket Procurement and Supply – Section 143 prohibits unauthorized procurement and supply of railway tickets to ensure system integrity – Penal provisions aim to regulate ticket procurement and eliminate touting – The provision remains valid and applicable irrespective of physical or online ticketing modes, considering the legislative objective [Paras 14, 27-28].

Statutory Interpretation – Development of Technology – Provisions Broadly Construed - Statutory provisions must accommodate technological advancements if their language permits – Section 143 encompasses illegal online ticketing, contrary to the Kerala High Court’s interpretation – The provision applies to the e-ticketing system as it regulates the business of procuring tickets irrespective of the method used [Paras 20-22].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Differential Outcomes - Quashing is permissible if FIR reveals no cognizable offence or continuance would result in injustice – Mathew, an unauthorized agent, must face trial under Section 143 – Ramesh, being an authorized agent, cannot be criminally prosecuted for contractual breaches, which require civil remedies [Paras 32-37].

Online Ticketing Rules – Use of Multiple User IDs – Unauthorized Practice Penalized - Use of multiple personal user IDs for profit by unauthorized agents violates IRCTC rules and attracts penalties under Section 143 – However, the provision does not criminalize such actions when committed by authorized agents [Paras 19, 36].

Decision  – Differential Relief Granted - Criminal proceedings against Mathew restored for trial under Section 143, while proceedings against Ramesh quashed due to lack of statutory violation – Appeals allowed partially [Paras 37-40].