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.

Agricultural Subsidy – Cold Storage – Withdrawal of Subsidy – Appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the APMC Act 1963, applied for subsidy under the NHB/NABARD Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction of a cold storage facility – 50% advance subsidy of Rs. 25 lakhs was released – Joint Monitoring Visit on 19.11.2008 found the facility at minimum capacity utilisation – Remaining subsidy was kept pending – Cold storage unit caught fire on 03.05.2011 due to short circuit – NABARD thereafter withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already paid – Single Judge set aside the withdrawal and directed release of remaining subsidy – Division Bench reversed and restored the authority's decision – Supreme Court sets aside the Division Bench and restores the Single Judge's order – Appeal allowed [Paras 2, 5, 6, 11].

Subsidy Scheme – Compliance – Efforts by Appellant – Joint Monitoring Visit Report itself recorded that the unit was "completed and commissioned" and recommended consideration for final subsidy as per NHB/NABARD guidelines – Appellant, through its bank GSCARDB, made repeated written requests between June 2009 and April 2011 seeking re-inspection and release of final subsidy – Authorities failed to conduct the requested inspections or release the amount despite numerous communications – Fire occurred while the matter stood at the stage of exchange of letters – Held: Appellant had discharged its obligation of making efforts under the Scheme; withdrawal of subsidy and recovery of amount already paid were unjustified – Contention of NHB that the appellant miserably failed to make efforts is contradicted by the Monitoring Committee's own report [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Environmental Law – Illegal Sand Mining – Protected Wildlife Sanctuary – Suo Motu Cognizance – Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance on 13.03.2026 of rampant illegal sand mining within the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary causing severe degradation of critical wildlife habitats including those of the endangered Gharials – Notices issued to States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change – On emergent application disclosing fresh incidents of violence and structural threat to a National Highway bridge, Court issues comprehensive interim directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 1, 2, 17, 18].

Illegal Sand Mining – Murder of Forest Guards – State Accountability – Forest guard Shri Harikesh Gurjar was deliberately run over and killed by a tractor-trolley while conducting anti-illegal mining operations near Morena, Madhya Pradesh on 08.04.2026 – Forest guard Shri Jitendra Singh Shekhawat, posted at Dholpur, Rajasthan, was similarly run over on 08.01.2026 and succumbed to injuries on 09.01.2026 – Incidents disclose a pattern of organised violent criminal activity by illegal mining operators – State of Madhya Pradesh disclosed before the National Green Tribunal that forest officials lacked adequate weaponry to deal with the armed sand mafia – Held: State cannot plead helplessness or take shelter under its own inadequacies; failure to equip enforcement personnel strikes at the root of governance and rule of law [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13].

Illegal Mining – Threat to Public Infrastructure – Structural Integrity of Bridge – Large-scale and systematic illegal sand mining carried out in close proximity to a National Highway-44 bridge over the Chambal river connecting Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan – Excavation of deep pits ranging from 30 to 50 feet around bridge pillars and beneath supporting structures, creating large water-filled cavities – Imminent risk of structural failure of a bridge carrying thousands of vehicles daily – Court observes prima facie administrative failure and lackadaisical approach warranting immediate intervention [Paras 6, 10].

Environmental Governance – Systemic Institutional Failure – State Accountability – National Green Tribunal had been grappling with the issue since 2022 without significant success – Material on record discloses a disturbing pattern of inaction and administrative indifference amounting to possible tacit connivance with illegal mining operators – Circumstances reflect not isolated lapses but systemic and institutional failure to discharge constitutional and statutory obligations – Held: Such apathy in the face of escalating environmental degradation and threats to human life is wholly inacceptable; Court cannot remain a silent spectator and must assume a proactive role [Paras 10, 11, 19].

Interim Directions – Article 142 – Surveillance and Enforcement Mechanism – Court issues eleven comprehensive directions including: installation of high-resolution Wi-Fi enabled CCTV cameras on elevated masts at routes used for illegal mining and vulnerable river stretches; live feed placed under control of SP/SSP and Divisional Forest Officer; mandatory GPS tracking devices in all vehicles and machinery used in mining in Districts Morena and Dholpur on pilot basis; dedicated control rooms for centralised monitoring; immediate seizure of vehicles involved in illegal mining and prosecution of all persons involved; environmental compensation proceedings under the Polluter Pays principle; constitution of dedicated joint patrol teams equipped with modern arms, surveillance equipment and protective gear; formulation of a comprehensive inter-State Standard Operating Procedure; and personal accountability of derelict officers including contempt proceedings – States warned that failure to take effective steps may result in deployment of paramilitary forces, a complete ban on sand mining, and imposition of heavy penalties [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Arbitration – Validity of Arbitration Clause – Word "Can" – Clause 25 of the Bill of Lading between the parties stated that any difference of opinion or dispute "can be settled by arbitration in India or a place mutually agreed with each party appointing an arbitrator" – Appellant invoked arbitration; respondent disputed the mandatory nature of the clause – Bombay High Court dismissed the Section 11 application holding the clause not to be a binding arbitration agreement – Supreme Court affirms – Held: The word "can" indicates a future possibility and not a determination or obligation to go for arbitration; Clause 25 merely leaves open the option of arbitration and would require a further agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 3, 4, 13].

Arbitration Agreement – Essential Requirements – Use of Word "Can" versus "Shall" – A valid arbitration agreement must disclose a determination and obligation to go for arbitration and not merely provide for the possibility of going to arbitration – The word "can" denotes capacity or factual possibility and does not import a mandate; "shall" signals obligation – Where a clause requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration, it is not an arbitration agreement but only an agreement to enter into one in future – Held: Clause 25 falls within this category and does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement – Relied upon: Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, followed in BGM and M-RPL-JMCT(JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. [Paras 7, 12, 13].

Contractual Interpretation – Party Autonomy – Principle that words chosen by parties are the most reliable manifestation of their intent – Latin maxim Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio – To impute an obligation or meaning not intended by the parties would compromise party autonomy – Arbitration, being inherently voluntary, can only be the chosen method if both parties agree – Court cannot compulsorily send parties before a jurisdiction they have not chosen – When parties are not ad idem as to arbitration itself, the question of construction of a vague arbitration clause does not arise [Paras 6, 11, 9.6].

Section 11 – Scope of Inquiry – Limited to prima facie examination of existence of arbitration agreement – Referral Court does not conduct a contested or laborious inquiry; that is left to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Prima facie view taken under Section 11(6-A) does not bind the Arbitral Tribunal or the court enforcing the award – Relied upon: SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg.; Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd. [Paras 7.1, 7.2, 8].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC – Distinction – Appellants filed a second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) challenging the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 as illegal and void, obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence, and seeking permanent injunction against alienation of suit properties — Respondents-defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the cause of action was identical to that of the first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) — Trial Court dismissed the rejection application and granted interim injunction — High Court reversed, holding both suits arose from the same cause of action and that plaintiffs were aware of the Power of Attorney — Held by Supreme Court: Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar the filing of a suit but only curtails the right to sue for claims relinquished or reliefs omitted in an earlier suit; such a plea cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without evidence being led — High Court's approach of analysing averments of the second suit as evidence was improper [Paras 5.17–5.21, 7–8].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Nature and Applicability – Cause of Action – Order II Rule 2 CPC is founded on the principle that a defendant shall not be vexed twice for the same cause of action — The bar under Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) operates only where the subsequent suit is in respect of the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the plaintiff had omitted to claim reliefs or relinquished claims without leave of court — To invoke the bar, the defendant must establish by evidence: (i) identity of cause of action in both suits; (ii) entitlement to more than one relief on such cause of action; and (iii) omission to claim such relief without leave of court — The technical bar cannot be presumed on inferential reasoning alone — The cause of action means every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support his right to judgment, and if evidence required to support the claims in the two suits is different, the causes of action are also different [Paras 5.4, 5.7, 5.9–5.12].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar by Law – Meaning – Distinction from Order II Rule 2 – Order VII Rule 11(d) requires that the suit must appear from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law — The bar must be express or implied and discernible on a meaningful reading of the plaint and annexed documents — Under Order II Rule 2, the right to sue for certain claims is taken away but the filing of the suit as such is not barred by law — Application of Order II Rule 2 to a case may result in rejection of certain reliefs or even dismissal of the suit after evidence, but does not result in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) — A plea under Order II Rule 2 cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 without recording evidence [Paras 5.13, 5.17–5.21, 7].

Cause of Action – Two Suits – First Suit vs. Second Suit – The first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) was filed by the parents seeking permanent injunction against the son from interfering with possession of the Chennai property and bank account — The second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) was filed after the death of M. Sokkalingam by his widow and daughters seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 was illegal and void along with consequential injunction against alienation of the Ooty (Nilgiris) and Pudukottai properties — The causes of action, properties involved, parties, and reliefs claimed in the two suits were distinct — The cause of action for the second suit arose upon the death of M. Sokkalingam on 13.03.2013 — High Court erred in holding that the cause of action was one and the same [Paras 1.2–1.10, 8–8.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the Madras High Court set aside – Order of the Trial Court in OS No. 2320/2013 restored along with the plaint – All observations confined to disposal of the appeal and not to bear on the merits of the suit – Parties to bear respective costs [Para 9].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum – Enhancement – Section 144 BNSS – Appellant-wife married on 07.05.2023, forced to leave matrimonial home within a year due to neglect and harassment, with no independent source of income – Family Court awarded ₹8,000/- per month – High Court enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month – Supreme Court on further appeal found quantum inadequate in light of respondent's gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670/- as Manager, Canara Bank – Held: Maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month is just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the case – Loan repayments towards asset creation cannot dilute the husband's primary obligation of maintenance [Paras 2–17].

Maintenance – Deductions from Salary – Loan Repayments – Effect – Courts below accorded considerable weight to deductions in the respondent's salary on account of loan repayments and other financial commitments – Held: Repayments of loans resulting in creation or acquisition of assets partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure – Such voluntary financial commitments cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance – Primary obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements [Paras 13, 15–16].

Maintenance – Object and Principles – Dignified Sustenance – Reiterating the settled position, the Court held that maintenance proceedings are intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance – Maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage – Determination must be based on a balanced assessment of the earning capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand modified – Maintenance enhanced to ₹25,000/- per month – Arrears to be cleared within three months – Amount payable on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.

Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Gold Smuggling – Dismissal of SLPs – Detenus alleged to have facilitated disposal of foreign-marked gold bars on multiple occasions – Detention Orders passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act on 22.04.2025 – Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld the Detention Orders – Supreme Court finds adequate procedural compliance by detaining authority in passing the Detention Orders – Held: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 35-36].

Legal Assistance Before Advisory Board – Section 8(e) of COFEPOSA Act – Article 22(3)(b) of Constitution – Detenu has no right to be represented by legal practitioner before Advisory Board as a matter of right – Right to legal assistance arises only when Detaining Authority itself participates through a legal practitioner or legal adviser before the Advisory Board – Officers merely producing records and assisting the Advisory Board do not trigger this right – Request of detenu for legal assistance before Advisory Board rightly rejected – Held: Rejection of legal assistance does not vitiate the detention proceedings [Paras 19, 21].

Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Pen Drive Containing CCTV Footage – Substantial Compliance – Contents of pen drive displayed to detenus on a laptop inside prison before making representations – Pen drive offered to representatives of detenus – Prison rules do not permit electronic gadgets to detenues – Detenus did not renew request for further display after initial viewing – Held: Non-supply of pen drive does not amount to non-furnishing of relied upon documents; contention rejected as afterthought – Distinguished: Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3697 [Paras 26, 28-29].

Representations – Disposal by Competent Authority – Communication through Same Official – Representations of detenu Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya dated 05.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 duly considered by Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA and Director General, CEIB respectively – Communications of rejection signed by Director, COFEPOSA held to be a mere ministerial act of conveying the decision of the competent authority – Held: Communication of rejection by same officer does not render the disposal incompetent or illegal [Paras 30-31].

Subjective Satisfaction – Live and Proximate Link – Detenu in Custody – Detention Order clearly records imminent possibility of release on bail – Prior occurrences of disposal of foreign-marked gold bars established with adequate particulars in grounds of detention – Live and proximate link between last transaction on 14.02.2025 and the incident on 03.03.2025 duly established qua detenu Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain – Held: Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority cannot be faulted [Paras 32, 34].

Habeas Corpus – Fresh Grounds – Strict Pleadings Not Applicable – Fresh grounds can be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition challenging detention order – However, such fresh grounds must still withstand factual scrutiny – Held: Even fresh grounds raised before the Supreme Court do not benefit the petitioners in light of substantial compliance by the authorities [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – No order as to costs.