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].

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.

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Erroneous Judicial Observations – Correction – Title to property near Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru disputed among three groups: the Muniswamappa group (Appellants), M/s Casablanca Estate (Respondent No. 1 claiming Sy No. 104), and the Chettiar group (Respondent Nos. 2–11 claiming Sy Nos. 102 and 103) – High Court in CRP No. 131/2022 erroneously recorded that Respondent No. 1 claimed ownership of the suit schedule property (Sy Nos. 102 and 103), when in fact Respondent No. 1 had consistently maintained that it owned a distinct property being Sy No. 104 and had been wrongly impleaded – Application under Section 152 CPC for correction of said observations dismissed by High Court – Supreme Court finds observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment to be prima facie erroneous and contrary to material on record – Held: Observations shall not be construed as a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property and shall not be relied upon by any party in any pending proceedings [Paras 2–3, 15–16, 25–27, 30].

Prior High Court Order – Mischaracterisation – Effect of Order Dated 20.02.2015 in WP No. 14279/2006 – High Court in impugned order recorded that the order dated 20.02.2015 "recognises ownership of Jayamma, predecessor in title of Defendant No. 14, and direction is issued to BBMP to mutate her name as owner of the schedule property" – Held: This characterisation is factually and legally incorrect – The order of 20.02.2015 expressly refrained from determining title, directed all parties to approach the civil court, and the direction to BBMP regarding Jayamma was limited to considering her application for katha in respect of the distinct property Sy No. 104 only [Paras 17, 21, 26, 30].

Identity of Property – Shared PID Number – Confusion Arising from Overlapping Municipal Identifiers – Respondent No. 1 contended that Sy No. 104 bore the same PID No. 81-86-1 as Sy Nos. 102 and 103, creating risk of one party's property being claimed as another's – Court noted this apprehension and directed that disputes regarding the concerned property shall be decided by the competent civil court on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by parties – Operative order rejecting plaint in OS No. 437/2020 not interfered with [Paras 20, 28, 30].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – Observations in paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned judgment of the High Court clarified and declared not to constitute a finding on title, identity, or location of the suit schedule property – Parties directed not to rely on said observations in any proceedings – Disputes to be adjudicated by the competent civil court – No order as to costs [Paras 30–32].

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Offence of Giving Dowry – Section 7(3) – Statutory Immunity – FIR against Wife and Family – Maintainability – Petitioner-husband sought registration of a separate FIR against his wife and her family members on the ground that their statements acknowledging payment of dowry constituted the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act — Application under Section 156(3) CrPC dismissed by Magistrate — Revision dismissed by Sessions Court — High Court upheld the concurrent orders — Held: Section 7(3) of the DP Act, inserted by Act 43 of 1986 with effect from 19.11.1986, expressly provides that a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to prosecution under the Act — Wife and her family members, being persons aggrieved, are fully protected by this statutory shield — Their complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements cannot form the substratum for launching prosecution against them for 'giving' dowry — Petition dismissed [Paras 9, 13, 20–21].

Section 7(3) of the DP Act – Legislative History – Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, 1982 – The Committee had recommended that givers of dowry should not be equated with takers, as parents are compelled to give dowry by societal and customary norms and do not do so out of free will — Further, penalising both giver and taker would deter complainants from coming forward — Pursuant to these recommendations, Act 43 of 1986 inserted Section 7(3) to protect the aggrieved persons from prosecution — 'Person aggrieved' under Section 7(3) includes not only the bride but also her parents and other relatives [Paras 12–13, 17].

Second FIR – Registration – Principles – A second FIR can be registered where it presents a rival version or counter-claim, where the ambit of the two FIRs is different, where investigation reveals the earlier FIR to be part of a larger conspiracy, or where the incident is separate — However, where the sole foundation for the second FIR is the complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements of the wife and her family members, without any independent evidence of 'giving' of dowry, registration of such FIR is not permissible — Had independent evidence been offered, the protection under Section 7(3) of the DP Act would not have been available [Paras 19–20].

Neera Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Observations directing registration of FIR for 'giving' dowry whenever wife alleges dowry was given — Held: Observations made in ignorance of Section 7(3) of the DP Act — Not binding precedent — Overruled in substance — Decision in Pooja Saxena vs. State and Another (Delhi HC), confirmed by Supreme Court on dismissal of SLP, represents correct position of law [Paras 14–16, 18].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed — No grounds to interfere with concurrent orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court — Pending applications stand dismissed [Paras 21–22].

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.

Legal Aid – Systemic Delays – SOP for Translation and Transmission of Records – Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution – Proceeding originating from a death sentence matter in which inordinate delays in legal aid matters were noticed by the Court – Amicus curiae appointed; extensive deliberations held with SCLSC, NALSA, High Courts, and other stakeholders over several years – Court approves comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP-2025) for translation, transmission, and monitoring of case records in legal aid appeals/SLPs – Timelines under Heading 5 of the SOP declared binding – Held: Access to justice for convicts and undertrial prisoners is a constitutional obligation under Articles 21 and 39A; structural gaps in the legal aid filing process must be addressed through enforceable timelines and accountability mechanisms [Paras 6, 10, 11].

Legal Aid – Constitutional Basis – Right to Counsel – Article 39A of the Constitution – Article 39A, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976, directs the State to provide free legal aid so that no individual is denied access to justice due to economic or other disadvantages – Courts have linked legal aid to Article 21, interpreting it to include fair legal procedures and access to legal representation – Legal aid in India is not merely a matter of policy but a constitutional responsibility – Prisoners do not surrender their fundamental rights at the prison gate [Para 6, 7].

SOP – Categorisation of Cases – Priority Framework – Cases categorised into Category A1 (death sentence, life imprisonment, sentences of ten years or more, juveniles), Category A2 (civil cases involving demolition, eviction, custody of children, MTP), Category B (sentences less than ten years but more than one year), and Category C (all other civil and criminal cases with sentences of one year or less) – Category A1 mandates mandatory daily status updates during initial 15 days post-judgment – Escalation protocol available for re-categorisation upon review [Para 8 – SOP Clause 3].

SOP – Translation Standards and Documentation – Priority Documents – Translation to commence immediately upon admission of appeal/receipt of convict's consent/acknowledgment of legal aid eligibility – Priority documents to be translated first include judgment, statements of at least two principal witnesses, FIR and chargesheet, relevant exhibits, bail applications, and convict's personal details – Remaining records to be fully translated within 60 days of filing – Every translated document to contain unique reference number, page-wise cross-references, Certificate of True Translation, and Declaration of Non-Association – Translations to be in searchable PDF format, watermarked for authenticity [Para 8 – SOP Clause 4].

SOP – Translator Engagement – Recruitment and Oversight – All High Courts directed to create and sanction regular or contractual posts of Translators and Translation Supervisors not less than one-third of the judge strength of the respective High Courts, and fill all posts within 90 days of vacancy – Minimum eligibility for Translators: Bachelor's degree in source language or English with preference for LL.B., minimum two years of legal translation experience – Minimum eligibility for Translation Supervisors: Post Graduate Diploma in Translation and LL.B. with minimum five years of experience – Translations to be verified within 15 to 30 days of submission; delay to invite explanation – Court observes that poor quality of translation has engaged its attention on several occasions, indicating need for structural change; High Courts directed to examine and decide on paragraph 6 of the SOP within four weeks [Paras 8, 12 – SOP Clause 6].

SOP – Digital Coordination – Monitoring and Accountability – SCLSC, HCLSCs, and jail authorities to integrate into a unified digital platform with real-time tracking dashboards, automated reminders, role-based access, and audit logs – Monitoring Committees to be constituted at each High Court and the Supreme Court comprising senior advocates of repute – Committees to meet fortnightly and submit monthly reports to SCLSC/NALSA – National Informatics Centre directed to create seamless unified digital platform within two months – NALSA Member Secretary designated as nodal officer to oversee implementation and periodic review of SOP [Paras 9, 13, 15 – SOP Clauses 7, 8].

SOP – Delay Explanation Format – Mandatory Checklist – A standardised checklist tracking dates of upload of impugned order, communication to convict, consent to file, transmission of translated documents, appointment of lawyer, handover of documents, and actual date of filing to be incorporated forthwith into all applications seeking condonation of delay filed by HCLSCs – Two weeks granted for incorporation; any appeal filed thereafter by HCLSC to necessarily contain the same [Paras 14 – SOP Clause 13].

Directions – Copy to High Courts – Compliance Report – Copy of order directed to be circulated to Registrars General of all High Courts for placing before Chief Justices and Executive Chairpersons of State Legal Services Committees – Status/compliance report to be filed by all concerned institutions including NIC by 30th April 2026 – Matter listed for further consideration on 4th May 2026 [Paras 10, 15, 16].

Decision: Order passed issuing directions on legal aid – Timelines under Heading 5 of SOP-2025 declared binding – Directions issued for constitution of Monitoring Committees, creation of unified digital platform, and incorporation of delay explanation format – Matter listed for compliance on 04/05/2026.

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].

Constitutional Law – Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance of Supreme Court Directions – Electoral Reforms – Asset Disclosure by Legislators – Petitioner alleged contempt on the ground that directions issued in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015, requiring a permanent mechanism to monitor asset growth of MPs/MLAs/MLCs exceeding 100% and amendment of Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, had not been implemented – Union submitted that Lok Sabha Secretariat reiterated legal and practical constraints in creating a monitoring committee, stating it would conflict with parliamentary practices and the jurisdiction of the Lokpal under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – A joint framework between the Election Commission and CBDT for verification of asset disclosures was noted to already exist – Held: No contempt made out – Petition disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Electoral Disqualification – Non-Disclosure of Assets – Undue Influence – Directions in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015 recalled: non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates constitutes corrupt practice amounting to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Form 26 directed to be amended to include information relating to statutory disqualifications under Sections 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, 10 and 10-A of the RP Act and contracts with appropriate government [Para 3].

Decision: Contempt Petition disposed of – No contempt found – Union's explanation regarding institutional constraints and existing framework accepted.

Civil Law– Ex Parte Suit – Framing of Issues – Points for Determination – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Respondent-defendant failed to appear throughout proceedings – Trial Court dismissed the suit ex parte for failure of the Appellant-plaintiff to prove title of the Respondent – No issue on title was framed – Appellate Court and High Court affirmed the dismissal – Held: Though framing of issues is not mandatory in ex parte proceedings by virtue of Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC, the court is nonetheless obligated to determine "points for determination" in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC and address them in the judgment – Omission to frame issues on title, which was never pleaded or contested, caused prejudice to the Appellant who had no notice or opportunity to lead evidence thereon – Judgments and decrees of both courts below set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court [Paras 2, 11, 26, 31, 32].

Valid Judgment – Essential Requirements – Ex Parte Proceedings – A judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for such decision in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC – Even in default or ex parte suits, the court must identify the legal points and give reasoned answers – Simply granting or refusing a decree on default without framing points for determination and reasoning is a material irregularity – A judgment must be a self-contained document from which it appears what the facts were, what controversy was tried, and how it was resolved [Paras 16, 20, 23].

Points for Determination – Nature and Function – Points for determination in a judgment correspond to issues framed during trial under Order XIV CPC – They focus the judgment on exact matters in controversy, guide the parties and the appellate court, and ensure every controverted issue is addressed – A judgment that omits discussion of issues in dispute is defective – Even when a defendant does not appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with points for determination altogether [Paras 21, 22, 23].

Framing of Issues – Omission – Test for Prejudice – Though framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory, omission to do so may vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice to the parties – Test for prejudice is whether the party had knowledge that a particular question was in issue and had opportunity to lead evidence on it – Where a question is neither pleaded nor contested and no issue is framed thereon, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove such fact – In the absence of any issue or pleading contesting title of the vendor in a suit for specific performance, plaintiff could not be expected to prove vendor's title [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31].

Specific Performance – Essential Ingredients – Proof – A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove: a valid and subsisting contract, breach thereof by the defendant, and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract – In the present case all three essentials were present, yet suit dismissed on title which was neither a pleaded defence nor a framed issue – Held: Dismissal on such ground unsustainable [Paras 29, 30, 31].

Decision: Civil Appeal disposed of – Judgments and decrees of both courts below set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration – Trial Court to issue notice to Respondent, complete pleadings, frame issues, and afford opportunity to parties to lead evidence – Appellant to appear before Trial Court on 04/05/2026 – No order as to costs.