Stray Animal Menace – Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 – Court examines compliance affidavits filed by States/UTs following prior orders – Amicus Curiae report reveals serious lapses in sterilisation, vaccination, and municipal preparedness – States/UTs directed to file additional affidavits detailing remedial steps – Registry to annex summary report as part of judicial record [Paras 5–7]

Highways – Road Safety – Stray Cattle and Animal-Related Accidents – Directions of Rajasthan High Court endorsed and extended nationwide – States/UTs, NHAI and PWDs directed to remove stray animals from highways – Mandate issued for coordinated patrols, shelters, helplines and signage – Personal accountability fixed on officials – Status reports to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Dog Bites – Institutional Spaces – Alarming rise in attacks at schools, hospitals, stadia, bus depots and railway stations – Detailed incidents from multiple States examined – Causes include poor waste disposal, unguarded premises, and administrative inaction – Court holds such conditions violate Article 21 and demand systemic correction [Paras 12–24]

Preventive Framework – Nationwide Directions – Mandatory fencing, campus security and appointment of Nodal Officers for all public/private institutional spaces – Municipal authorities to remove stray dogs and prohibit their return to same premises – Hospitals directed to stock anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin – Educational institutions to conduct awareness drives – Animal Welfare Board to issue national SOPs – Compliance to be monitored rigorously [Paras 25–32]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Held: Failure to secure public institutions from preventable dog attacks violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Reaffirmation of State obligation to ensure safe environments in spaces of education, treatment and transit – Directions aimed at eliminating human-animal conflict through lawful, humane measures [Paras 22–26]

Decision:

Comprehensive nationwide directions issued for prevention of dog-bite incidents and stray animal control in institutional spaces and highways – States/UTs, Union Ministries, NHAI and Animal Welfare Board to file compliance affidavits within 8 weeks – Non-compliance may attract contempt – Next hearing on 13/01/2026 [Paras 25–33]

Registration Law – Mutation Requirement for Sale Deeds – Subordinate Legislation – Constitutionality – Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amended by adding sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii), requiring production of mutation (Jamabandi/Holding) certificate as a precondition for registration – Supreme Court held that the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Such rules indirectly require verification of title by registering authorities which is impermissible – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Registration cannot be refused merely for absence of Jamabandi/Holding allotment – Registration and mutation are distinct legal concepts and cannot be conflated through subordinate legislation [Paras 4-5, 14-17, 23-25].

Property Law – Registration of Documents – Constitutionality of Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – Appellant challenged amended sub-rules requiring mutation proof (Jamabandi/Holding Allotment) as a pre-condition for registration of property documents – Held: The impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Such rules impose an arbitrary and illegal pre-condition for registration which impinges on the right to dispose of property – Appeals allowed and rules struck down [Paras 1, 2.1, 2.2, 5, 25, 29, 38].

Rule-Making Power – Scope under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Section 69 permits framing of rules for regulating registration procedures and maintenance of registers – It does not confer power to prescribe mutation or proof of title as a condition precedent for registration – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) not relatable to any clause under Section 69, including (a), (aa), (h) or (j) – Rule struck down as ultra vires [Paras 14–17, 23–25].

Registration vs. Title – Legal Framework – Registration of a sale deed does not confer title, only evidences transaction – Title determination lies within domain of civil courts – Mutation does not create title, thus insisting on Jamabandi/Holding certificate for registration misconceives legal position – Held: Sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii) disrupt the distinction between registration and ownership [Paras 2.1, 6, 8.1, 8.2, 32].

Mutation Process in Bihar – Practical Difficulties – State argued that impugned rules intended to align registration with ground realities of landholding – Court found that Bihar’s mutation system under 2011 Acts is incomplete – Most jamabandis are outdated or in names of deceased ancestors – Process of survey and digital settlement far from complete – Held: Imposing mutation requirement imposes unreasonable restriction on sale and purchase of property [Paras 7, 26–29].

Right to Property – Constitutional Dimension – Freedom to acquire and dispose of immovable property is a protected right – Arbitrary rule restricting registration amounts to deprivation of property – Held: Procedural hurdles cannot be used to frustrate ownership rights or impair transactional efficiency [Paras 2, 29, 30, 32].

Comparative Review of Existing and Impugned Sub-Rules – Rule 19(i) to (xvi) relate to document execution, property identification, fees, and identity – Do not concern proof of title – Impugned Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) introduce new requirement for mutation proof – Court held: These are qualitatively distinct and impermissible under registration framework [Paras 10–13].

Future Reforms – Conclusive Titling and Technology Integration – Court acknowledged need to modernize property registration system – Suggested adoption of Blockchain for secure, transparent land records – Directed Law Commission to study integration of conclusive titling with existing laws through technology and reforms [Paras 34–37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Patna High Court set aside – Notification dated 10.10.2019 introducing Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) quashed – Parties to bear own costs [Para 38–39].

Arbitration – Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Arbitral Award Set Aside – Arbitrator awarded reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks to caterers despite express contract and circulars stating otherwise – Supreme Court held that this amounted to rewriting the contract – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider binding policy decisions of Railway Board which governed the MLA and exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 28(3) of the Act – Award found to be patently illegal and in conflict with public policy of India – Set aside under Section 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 62–72].

Contract – Government Policy – Supremacy of Railway Board Circulars – No Unilateral Deviation Permissible – Circulars dated 23.10.2013 and 06.08.2014 formed basis of contract and fixed rates for meals and services – Clause 21.1 of Master Licence Agreement gave precedence to Railway policy over other contractual provisions – Held: No deviation permissible from binding Railway Board circulars – Arbitrator’s contrary interpretation was unjustified [Paras 56–60, 68–69].

Arbitration – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 – Limits of Judicial Review Reaffirmed – Court reiterated limited grounds of interference under Section 34(2A) – Held: Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or correct errors of law unless award shocks conscience or contravenes fundamental policy – Arbitrator’s findings that ignored binding government policy warranted judicial interference [Paras 63–67].

Interest – Arbitrator’s Award on Lump Sum Interest Set Aside – Arbitrator Awarded Interest from 01.01.2018 on Entire Claim Though Claims Arose Periodically – Division Bench rightly held that interest award was erroneous – Supreme Court: In light of full setting aside of award, interest claim becomes infructuous [Paras 43, 72].

Catering Contracts – Welcome Drink Charges – Reimbursement Denied – Bid documents and Clause 8.1 of MLA permitted menu changes – Circulars contemplated welcome drink as part of service without separate charges – Held: No entitlement to separate payment – Arbitrator’s award unjustified [Paras 60–61, 71].

Decision: Appeals of IRCTC allowed – Arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected on 26.07.2022) and Delhi High Court’s judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 set aside – Cross appeals filed by caterers dismissed – Parties to bear own costs.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – High Court granted bail without recording mandatory satisfaction under Section 37 – Allegation involved concealment of 731.075 kg of ganja ingeniously hidden in a lorry owned and driven by accused – Supreme Court held that such bail violates settled law requiring strict compliance with Section 37 – Bail order set aside – Respondent directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 2, 4, 12, 15].

NDPS Act – Interpretation of Section 37 – Supreme Court reiterated that in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, bail is to be granted only upon satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 – Reference made to NCB v. Kashif, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848 – Courts must not dilute rigour of statute under guise of delay or affidavits by relatives [Paras 5, 12].

Criminal Law – Delay in Trial – Not Ground for Bail – Respondent had been in custody for 1 year 4 months – Charges not yet framed – Supreme Court held that delay, though relevant, cannot override statutory bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act – Especially when allegations involve organized trafficking and fabricated cavities in vehicle to hide contraband [Paras 11-12].

Public Health – Drug Trafficking and Substance Abuse – Court emphasized that drug trafficking is a global public health crisis – Referred to UNODC 2025 Report and Indian medical literature – Under Article 47 of Constitution, State duty-bound to curb narcotics – Court viewed respondent's conduct as organized trafficking posing societal harm [Paras 8-10].

Surety by Family Member – Undertaking by Army Brother Irrelevant – Respondent’s brother, an Army sepoy, offered to ensure compliance with bail terms – Court rejected such surety as legally irrelevant – Held: Sins of accused cannot be visited upon relatives – No substitution for judicial satisfaction under Section 37 [Para 14].

Execution of Decree – Abatement of Appeal – Decree Passed in Favour of Deceased Appellants – Nullity – Trial Court’s Decree Revived – Decree passed by First Appellate Court in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who had died prior to hearing and without substitution of legal heirs – Held: Decree a nullity as Order XXII Rule 6 CPC not attracted – Decree of Trial Court alone executable – Execution petition wrongly dismissed [Paras 5–14]

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of Appellants – Effect – Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 died before appeal hearing – No legal heirs brought on record – First appellate court’s judgment held to be void ab initio – Citing Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto and Amba Bai v. Gopal – High Court erred in treating appellate decree as operative – Restoration of execution proceedings ordered [Paras 8–13]

Execution Law – Null Decree – Executability – Principle – Where decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be raised even at execution stage – Citing Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan – Appellant entitled to enforce trial court decree dated 14.08.2006 – Rejection of execution by courts below unsustainable [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of executing court and High Court set aside – Execution proceedings restored – Decree of trial court dated 14.08.2006 held valid and executable – No order as to costs [Para 16]

Election Law – Disqualification – Non-disclosure of Conviction – Section 138 NI Act – Election Set Aside – Petitioner elected as Councillor but failed to disclose conviction and sentence of one year under Section 138 of the NI Act in affidavit under Rule 24-A – High Court and Trial Court held that non-disclosure breached Rule 24-A and attracted Section 22(1)(d)(i) & (iii) of MP Municipalities Act – Held: Disclosure mandatory irrespective of nature of offence – Omission affected the validity of nomination and the election was rightly declared void [Paras 1–5, 12–17, 19–24]

Election Affidavits – False Declaration – Rule 24-A of MP Nirvachan Rules – Right to Know – Petitioner furnished false affidavit omitting criminal conviction – Such omission held to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of voters under Article 19(1)(a) – Citing Association for Democratic Reforms and Krishnamoorthy – Held: False affidavit violates voter’s right to informed choice and mandates invalidation of the election [Paras 13–15, 20–24]

Subsequent Acquittal – Effect on Nomination Validity – Acquittal After Election – Petitioner claimed disqualification was cured as conviction was later set aside – Court held eligibility is to be assessed as on date of nomination – Subsequent developments irrelevant for compliance with Rule 24-A – Held: Subsequent acquittal does not invalidate prior disqualification or omission [Paras 5, 12, 19]

Article 136 – Discretion Not Invoked – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 – Held: No exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice shown – Petitioner’s non-disclosure was deliberate and unexplained – She did not enter witness box – Bye-election held and she lost – No reason to invoke discretionary jurisdiction [Paras 25–26]

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Election rightly declared void due to improper acceptance of nomination and suppression of material facts – No interference warranted under Article 136 [Paras 25–26]

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Regulations – Whether owner can be compelled to construct commercial ground floor in notified mixed-use streets – Held: No; mixed-use is only permissive, not mandatory – Authorities acted arbitrarily in denying sanction for purely residential construction – Deemed sanction upheld – Directions to approve fresh plans within four weeks – Costs of ₹10 lakhs imposed on SDMC for harassment [Paras 10–16, 19–20].

Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Streets – MPD-2021 – Commercial Use Permissive, Not Mandatory - Mixed-use notification (15.09.2006) and Circular dated 27.05.2009 make it clear that commercial use on ground floor of mixed-use streets is optional – Owner may choose to develop property as (i) commercial, (ii) mixed-use, or (iii) purely residential – The circular expressly states that plans “can be sanctioned… as per the choice of the applicant” – High Court correctly held that owners cannot be forced to convert ground floor to commercial use [Paras 10–12].

Municipal Governance – Arbitrary Refusal of Sanction – Appellant’s Case Found Illogical and Contrary to Record - SDMC’s argument that respondents must compulsorily maintain a commercial ground floor is inconsistent with its own earlier case that the plans lacked stilt parking – No statutory instrument mandates compulsory commercial use – Court finds SDMC’s stand irrational, illogical, and contrary to MPD-2021 – Forcing citizens to set up shops when they desire only residential use held wholly unjustified [Paras 9, 13–14].

Dilapidated Structure – Fundamental Right to Rebuild – Municipality Cannot Prevent Reconstruction of Unsafe Home - Respondents’ 85-year-old residential house (constructed in 1940) was in a dangerously dilapidated condition – Court notes photographic evidence showing the premises at risk of collapse – Instead of ensuring safety, SDMC obstructed rebuilding for 15 years – Conduct held oppressive and amounting to harassment – Right to rebuild residential house recognised as a legitimate, vested entitlement [Paras 15–16].

Concurrent Findings – Tribunal, ADJ, and High Court All Upheld Deemed Sanction – Supreme Court Declines Interference - Three authorities concurrently held that respondents’ plans deserved sanction – Tribunal granted deemed sanction; ADJ affirmed; High Court affirmed and dismissed review – No perversity, no legal error, and no misinterpretation found – Interference under Article 136 unwarranted [Paras 5–9, 17].

Costs – Harassment by Public Authority – Exemplary Costs of ₹10 Lakhs Imposed on SDMC - Given prolonged litigation (15 years), arbitrary obstruction, and hardship caused to elderly residents, Court imposes ₹10,00,000 costs on SDMC to be paid to respondents on or before 17.12.2025 – Payment to be reported to Supreme Court [Para 20].

Directions – Fresh Plans – Mandatory Sanction Within Four Weeks - Respondents permitted to submit fresh building plans for residential construction – SDMC directed to grant sanction within four weeks from submission – Respondents may also rely on earlier plans approved by High Court [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order affirmed – Respondents entitled to rebuild residential house – Fresh plans to be sanctioned within four weeks – Costs of ₹10,00,000 imposed on SDMC – Connected appeal also disposed [Paras 18–22].

Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Split Multiplier – Applicability – High Court reduced compensation by applying split multiplier on assumption of post-retirement income reduction – Held: There exists divergence among High Courts on applying split multiplier – Following Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier must depend solely on age of the deceased – Retirement or superannuation cannot be treated as an “exceptional circumstance” to justify a split multiplier – Split multiplier is foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act and should not be used by Tribunals or Courts [Paras 14–19].

Judicial Discipline – Divergence of Views – Intra-Court Conflicts – Supreme Court expressed concern over inconsistent approaches by coordinate benches within same High Courts, leading to uncertainty for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals – Directed that where conflicting views exist, the matter should be referred to a larger bench to maintain judicial propriety [Para 14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Income Assessment – Future Prospects – Income at the time of death to be taken as base for computation – Future prospects of 15% correctly applied for deceased aged 51 years – High Court failed to comply with directive in Pranay Sethi regarding 10% enhancement under conventional heads every three years – Corrected computation yielded total compensation of ₹47,76,794/- [Paras 19–20].

Directions – Prospective Application – Circulation to High Courts and Tribunals – The ruling on non-applicability of split multiplier to operate prospectively – Registrar (Judicial) directed to circulate copy to Registrars General of all High Courts and to Motor Accident Tribunals for uniform application [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment dated 28.06.2024 and review orders dated 27.11.2024 set aside – Tribunal award dated 02.04.2014 restored with modification to ₹47,76,794/- compensation and interest @7.5% p.a. – Directions for remittance of compensation to appellants’ bank accounts before 30.11.2025 – Prospective effect clarified [Paras 20–23].

Criminal Procedure – Arrest – Communication of Grounds – Mode, Timing, and Language – Arrest without written communication of grounds violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest and remand thereby rendered illegal – Minimum requirement: Written grounds of arrest to be furnished at least two hours before production for remand – Applies to all offences including under BNS 2023 [Paras 46–58].

Constitutional Law – Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) Violation – Arrest declared illegal if grounds not furnished in writing – mandatory communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 50 CrPC 1973) – Supreme Court holds that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and must be meaningfully communicated in writing in the language understood by the arrestee – Oral communication deemed insufficient, except in limited exigent circumstances, where delay in furnishing written grounds must be justified and completed at least two hours before production for remand – Held: Arrest and remand without such compliance are illegal [Paras 2, 7, 33–36, 39–41, 46, 49–55].

Procedure for Arrest – Mode and Timing of Communication – Arrest in Exceptional Situations – Supreme Court clarifies that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to arrestee in all cases, including offences under BNS 2023 (formerly IPC 1860), UAPA, PMLA, or other statutes – Exception carved out for flagrant arrests during commission of crime or in exigent circumstances – In such cases, oral communication at the time of arrest permitted, but written grounds must be furnished within a reasonable time, and in no case later than two hours before production before magistrate for remand – Remand papers must include such grounds and note cause for any delay – Held: This framework balances fundamental rights and law enforcement needs [Paras 7, 41, 48–54].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22 – Personal Liberty and Legal Aid – Right to legal representation and to oppose remand must be made effective by timely communication of grounds of arrest – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of early access to legal assistance and meaningful opportunity to contest arrest – Cites Suhas Chakma and Ashok v. State of U.P. for reinforcing right to legal aid at pre-remand stage – Communication in a language not understood by arrestee held to defeat the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) – Arrest without such safeguards is unconstitutional [Paras 17–20, 35–38, 42–45].

Interpretation of Precedents – Harmonizing Case Law – Court harmonizes earlier judgments – Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar – Holds that while earlier decisions dealt with special statutes (UAPA, PMLA), the principle of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing applies universally, including to BNS 2023 – Clarifies that Article 22(1) is not offence-specific – Held: Earlier inconsistent High Court views not good law [Paras 9–13, 22–27, 56–58].

Police Powers and Duties – Arrest Procedure – Statutory Compliance under BNSS 2023 – Sections 47 and 48 BNSS mandate informing arrestee and their relatives about the arrest and grounds thereof – Court directs that these duties be recorded in station diary – Magistrates must satisfy themselves that these safeguards have been followed – Emphasizes purpose behind these provisions is to protect liberty, avoid arbitrariness, and reduce custodial abuse – Held: Violation of these procedural duties renders arrest and remand void [Paras 19–21, 47].

Impact of Arrest – Social and Psychological Consequences – Supreme Court acknowledges the deep psychological and societal stigma of arrest – Arrest causes irreversible reputational damage and mental health deterioration – Cites Arnesh Kumar and Joginder Kumar to reinforce that arrest is not to be made mechanically – Held: Arrest powers must be exercised cautiously, keeping in view the consequences and the requirement to inform the arrested person meaningfully [Paras 28–31].

Decision:

– Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 disposed of, as issue of law has been settled – Appeal not entertained on merits [Para 59]

– Ad interim bail granted in Criminal Appeals No. 2189 & 2190 of 2025 to continue – Liberty to prosecution to seek remand after supply of written grounds [Para 60]

– Ad interim bail in SLP (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025 to continue – Matter to be listed before appropriate bench [Para 63]

– Registry directed to circulate this judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs [Para 65]