Constitutional Law – Village Common Lands – Proprietary Rights – Haryana Amendment Validity – Civil Appeal by State against High Court's partial quashing of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 – High Court struck down amendment expanding 'shamilat deh' definition under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Supreme Court examined impact on proprietors who contributed land under the 1948 Consolidation Act [Paras 1 to 3, 24 to 64]

Interpretation – 'Shamilat Deh' and Bachat Land – Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserted Section 2(g)(6) defining lands reserved for common village purposes under 1948 Act as 'shamilat deh' – Proprietors challenged inclusion of unutilized (bachat) lands not earmarked for common use – Held: Only lands specifically reserved in the scheme for common purposes would vest with Gram Panchayat – Bachat lands not so reserved do not vest in Panchayat and must revert to contributing proprietors [Paras 2.1 to 2.6, 53]

Property Rights – Article 31-A and Compensation – Held: Reservation of land solely for Panchayat income purposes without compensation violates second proviso to Article 31-A – Reservation for common use (e.g. roads, schools) upheld, but revenue-generation reservation constitutes acquisition requiring compensation – Clarified that unless land was actually earmarked for common purpose and possession transferred, vesting in Panchayat does not occur [Paras 31 to 42, 46 to 51]

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court analyzed key decisions: Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram – Ajit Singh held State must justify if land acquisition is for its own benefit – Bhagat Ram emphasized Panchayat's income land is State acquisition requiring compensation – These binding precedents upheld [Paras 24 to 51]

High Court Reasoning – Consistent Judicial View – Full Bench rightly relied on earlier Division Bench ruling in Gurjant Singh – Held: Bachat lands unutilized under consolidation scheme to be re-partitioned among proprietors in original share – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reliance on consistent precedent and clarified that State itself had not challenged that aspect before [Paras 54 to 57]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court – Longstanding judicial consensus on bachat lands reverting to proprietors was applied – Court held that such consistency over 100 judgments cannot be lightly disturbed unless manifestly erroneous – Followed principle of legal certainty and predictability [Paras 58 to 62]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Haryana’s appeal against High Court judgment dismissed – Land not specifically earmarked in the scheme does not vest with State – To revest with proprietors – No costs awarded [Paras 63 to 64]

Constitutional Law – Village Common Lands – Proprietary Rights – Haryana Amendment Validity – Civil Appeal by State against High Court's partial quashing of the Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 – High Court struck down amendment expanding 'shamilat deh' definition under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Supreme Court examined impact on proprietors who contributed land under the 1948 Consolidation Act [Paras 1 to 3, 24 to 64]

Interpretation – 'Shamilat Deh' and Bachat Land – Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 inserted Section 2(g)(6) defining lands reserved for common village purposes under 1948 Act as 'shamilat deh' – Proprietors challenged inclusion of unutilized (bachat) lands not earmarked for common use – Held: Only lands specifically reserved in the scheme for common purposes would vest with Gram Panchayat – Bachat lands not so reserved do not vest in Panchayat and must revert to contributing proprietors [Paras 2.1 to 2.6, 53]

Property Rights – Article 31-A and Compensation – Held: Reservation of land solely for Panchayat income purposes without compensation violates second proviso to Article 31-A – Reservation for common use (e.g. roads, schools) upheld, but revenue-generation reservation constitutes acquisition requiring compensation – Clarified that unless land was actually earmarked for common purpose and possession transferred, vesting in Panchayat does not occur [Paras 31 to 42, 46 to 51]

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court analyzed key decisions: Ranjit Singh, Ajit Singh, Bhagat Ram – Ajit Singh held State must justify if land acquisition is for its own benefit – Bhagat Ram emphasized Panchayat's income land is State acquisition requiring compensation – These binding precedents upheld [Paras 24 to 51]

High Court Reasoning – Consistent Judicial View – Full Bench rightly relied on earlier Division Bench ruling in Gurjant Singh – Held: Bachat lands unutilized under consolidation scheme to be re-partitioned among proprietors in original share – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reliance on consistent precedent and clarified that State itself had not challenged that aspect before [Paras 54 to 57]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court – Longstanding judicial consensus on bachat lands reverting to proprietors was applied – Court held that such consistency over 100 judgments cannot be lightly disturbed unless manifestly erroneous – Followed principle of legal certainty and predictability [Paras 58 to 62]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Haryana’s appeal against High Court judgment dismissed – Land not specifically earmarked in the scheme does not vest with State – To revest with proprietors – No costs awarded [Paras 63 to 64]

Banking Law - SARFAESI Proceedings – Loan Default and Auction – Challenge to Sale Notice – Stay and Set Aside – Respondent defaulted on loan repayment after mortgaging properties – After compromise failed, sale notices were issued and challenged – DRT initially granted stay, later refused extension – Ultimately, auction held, but set aside by DRT due to procedural lapses – Fresh auctions challenged again, but without final adjudication [Paras 2, 5, 9, 13-14].

One-Time Settlement (OTS) – SBI OTS 2020 Scheme – Eligibility Criteria – Upfront Payment Mandatory – Application Incomplete – Application by borrower under OTS 2020 Scheme was not accompanied by 5% of proposed settlement amount as required by Clause 4(i) of Scheme – Held: Failure to deposit upfront rendered application invalid and not liable to be processed [Paras 25-27, 39-40].

Judicial Review – Grounds of Rejection – Validity of Administrative Orders – Additional Grounds Permissible if Fairness Ensured – Though SBI’s rejection letter did not cite failure to pay upfront amount as a reason, the Court held that where alternative valid grounds appear from record and parties are put to notice, orders may be upheld on such grounds in the interest of justice – Principles in Mohinder Singh Gill case harmonized with fairness doctrine [Paras 34-38, 42].

Mandamus – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – No Positive Right to OTS – Direction Limited to Reconsideration – Courts below erred in issuing directions to reconsider respondent’s OTS application without examining eligibility under Clause 4(i) – Courts should not compel grant or reconsideration unless statutory duty exists – High Court’s interference unjustified [Paras 21, 23-24, 29, 43].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction for reconsideration of OTS application set aside – Respondent permitted to submit fresh proposal not under 2020 Scheme – Appellants may proceed to enforce security interest as per law [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 305, 506-B & 195-A IPC – Partial Acquittal – Appeal post-death of accused – Consequential relief to heirs – Appellant (widow and children of deceased convict Akhtar) pursued appeal to claim terminal benefits due to wrongful conviction – Sessions Court convicted Akhtar under Sections 305 and 506-B IPC and sentenced him to 10 and 2 years RI respectively – High Court set aside Section 305 conviction but convicted him under newly inserted Section 195-A IPC (post-facto) while affirming Section 506-B conviction – Supreme Court held that Section 195-A IPC could not apply retrospectively to an offence committed in 1999, as it was introduced in 2006 – High Court erred in invoking Section 195-A IPC violating Article 20(1) of the Constitution – Conviction under Section 195-A set aside – Conviction under Section 506-B IPC affirmed based on consistent testimony of PWs 2, 3, and 4, despite minor inconsistencies and absence of Akhtar's name in testimonies of PWs 5 to 7 – Defence evidence (DWs 3 and 4) showing Akhtar’s presence in court the whole day was not accepted by trial court and rightly not interfered with – Appeal dismissed partially with liberty to State to reconsider terminal benefits in humanitarian terms [Paras 1 to 34].

Witness Testimony – Consistency of Threat Allegations – PWs 3 and 4 (victim’s sister and mother) deposed consistently about threats from Akhtar and co-accused on 19.02.1999 which caused the victim to commit suicide – PW-2 recorded the victim’s dying declaration supporting the same – Minor inconsistency in PW-4’s account (mentioning a second threat only later) not considered fatal – FIR not expected to contain exhaustive account – Omission not significant enough to discredit their testimony [Paras 9-15].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – Although not formally exhibited, the version narrated by PW-2 (Deputy Tehsildar) of the victim’s dying declaration was consistent with PWs 3 and 4 – Even if other PWs (5, 6, 7) didn’t name Akhtar, the Court upheld the credibility of the dying declaration corroborated by close family members [Paras 13, 16-17].

Conviction under Section 195-A IPC – Retrospective Application Barred – Incident took place in 1999 – Section 195-A IPC inserted only in 2006 – Supreme Court held High Court gravely erred in convicting Akhtar under a law not in force at the time of the offence – Violation of Article 20(1) – Conviction under Section 195-A IPC set aside [Paras 18-20, 29].

Conviction under Section 506-B IPC – Sustained – Despite no separate reasoning by High Court, Supreme Court reviewed evidence and found consistent and credible testimony proving threats issued by Akhtar – Defence evidence rightly disbelieved by Sessions Court – No error in affirming Section 506-B conviction [Paras 21-28, 30].

Posthumous Appeal – Terminal Benefits – Humanitarian Approach – Supreme Court acknowledged Akhtar’s termination from service was based on now-partly quashed conviction under Section 305 IPC – Only Section 506-B conviction survives – Directed State of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider termination and eligibility for terminal benefits afresh, considering widow’s financial condition and adopting a humanitarian view – Decision to be taken within 3 months [Paras 31-33].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 195-A IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 506-B IPC upheld – State to reconsider terminal benefits due to deceased appellant’s family in light of reduced conviction.

Criminal Law - Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act  – Direction for Re-trial – Procedural Lapses in Admitting Electronic Evidence – High Court Order Set Aside – In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, the Trial Court convicted the appellant based on oral evidence and video recordings supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – The High Court allowed the appeal partly and ordered a re-trial citing failure to properly admit the CD and to examine the Chemical Analyst – The Supreme Court held that the video was already admissible with a valid certificate and that failure to explain it through witness testimony or prepare a transcript was not fatal – Further held that CA’s report was admissible under Section 293 CrPC and non-examination of the CA was not fatal in the absence of objection – Re-trial can only be ordered in exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice, which was not established here – Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and matter remanded for fresh consideration of appeal on merits by High Court [Paras 1, 18-21, 36].

NDPS Trial – Admissibility of Video Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of Evidence Act – Re-trial Unwarranted – High Court erred in holding video inadmissible due to absence of witness-specific narration or transcript – Once certificate under Section 65B(4) is submitted, CD is admissible – Video corroborated oral testimony and was viewed by the Court, counsels, and accused – No prejudice established – Re-trial on this ground unjustified [Paras 18-20].

Chemical Examiner’s Report – Section 293 CrPC – Not Mandatory to Examine CA in Every Case – High Court incorrectly held non-examination of CA as a fatal flaw – Under Section 293, CA’s report is admissible without oral evidence unless specifically disputed – Report was exhibited and not objected to during trial – No legal error found [Paras 21, 24].

Production of Contraband – Importance of Inventory and Sampling – Section 52A NDPS Act – While seized ganja was not physically produced, prosecution proved preparation of inventory certified by Magistrate, proper sampling, and FSL report confirming intact seals and presence of ganja – Evidence sufficient to establish seizure and identity – Failure to open samples during trial was curable defect, not warranting re-trial [Paras 25-32].

Re-trial – Exceptional Remedy – Not to Cure Curable Procedural Lapses – Court reiterated settled law that re-trial is permissible only in cases of serious miscarriage of justice – High Court’s reasons (procedural missteps in admitting electronic and scientific evidence) did not meet threshold for re-trial – Proper course was to remand for additional evidence or dispose of appeal on merits – High Court’s approach was legally flawed [Paras 16-19, 34].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order for Re-trial Set Aside – Criminal Appeals Restored – High Court directed to decide both appeals afresh on merits within six months – Appellant to continue on bail – Supreme Court made no comment on merits of case [Paras 35-38].

Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 – Constitutional Challenge – Interim Relief Denied – Multiple petitioners challenged constitutional validity of provisions of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 alleging arbitrariness, discrimination, and infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court rejected prayer for stay of entire statute but granted limited interim relief in respect of certain provisions – Held: Presumption of constitutionality stands, no prima facie case made out for total stay – Certain clauses stayed or limited pending rulemaking or final adjudication [Paras 1, 120, 209].

Definition of Waqf – Five-Year Practice of Islam Condition – Section 3(r) – Provision requiring dedication by a person showing Islamic practice for at least 5 years held not arbitrary – However, implementation stayed pending rulemaking to define mechanism for ascertaining practice – Purpose is to avoid misuse via fraudulent conversions – No stay on entire definition, only limited part stayed [Paras 132–140, 209(i)].

Waqf by User – Deletion of Clause (i) of Section 3(r) – Validity Upheld – The deletion of concept of ‘waqf by user’ upheld prospectively – Court observed that for decades, registration was mandatory and waqfs could have complied – Held: Concept prone to misuse; legislature’s power to amend statute upheld – No retrospective impact on vested waqf rights [Paras 143–152].

Wrongful Declaration of Waqf – Section 3C – Partial Stay Granted – Court upheld inquiry mechanism for identifying government land wrongly declared as waqf – However, stayed proviso to sub-section (2) and sub-sections (3) and (4) as they allowed executive action to change status without judicial determination – Held: Only Tribunal can determine title, not revenue officer [Paras 153–167, 209(ii), (iii)].

Protected Monuments – Section 3D – Declaration of Waqf Prohibited – Provision barring declaration of protected monuments as waqf upheld – Court observed such monuments are national heritage and religious practices remain unaffected under existing heritage law – Argument of interference in Islamic religious practice rejected [Paras 168–172].

Tribal Areas – Section 3E – Declaration of Waqf Prohibited – Provision barring declaration of Scheduled/Tribal land as waqf upheld – Based on protection for vulnerable communities under Fifth and Sixth Schedules – Provision has nexus with object sought to be achieved and is not arbitrary [Paras 173–178].

Composition of Waqf Boards and Councils – Inclusion of Non-Muslims – Section 9 and Section 14 – Court limited number of non-Muslim members to 4 (Council) and 3 (Board) – Though inclusion not stayed, directed cap to preserve character – Function of Board held largely secular – Appointment of Muslim CEO encouraged but not mandated [Paras 179–189, 209(iv), (v)].

Registration of Waqf – Bar on Enforcement by Unregistered Waqfs – Section 36(10) – Validity Upheld – Court upheld bar on institution of legal proceedings on behalf of unregistered waqfs – Provision aligns with past recommendations and earlier legal framework – Six-month window and judicial discretion to condone delay provide sufficient protection [Paras 190–192].

Evacuee Waqf Properties – Section 108 – Deletion Upheld – Court found provision redundant as Evacuee Property Act was repealed – Deletion does not impair any constitutional right [Paras 203–205].

Overriding Effect Clause – Section 108A – Deletion Permissible – Provision existed only from 2013–2025 – Legislature competent to delete earlier overriding clause – Deletion held valid [Paras 206–208].

Limitation Act – Application to Waqf Property – Section 107 – Validity Upheld – Application of general limitation law to waqf proceedings upheld as removing earlier special treatment – Not discriminatory [Paras 198–202].

Final Decision – Entire Act Not Stayed – Limited Provisions Stayed – Directions Issued – Court declined stay on impugned Act – Issued specific directions to limit possible misuse or ambiguity – Observations held prima facie and not binding for final adjudication on merits [Para 209].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – FIR for Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – FIR Quashed – FIR was filed nearly five years after a failed commercial transaction involving alleged defective machinery supplied under a sale agreement – Supreme Court found that allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception – No ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC made out – FIR, chargesheet, and proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 5-10, 15-17, 21, 23].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations Vague and Mala Fide – Continuation of Proceedings an Abuse of Process – High Court erred in dismissing application under Section 482 CrPC despite absence of mens rea and presence of mala fide intent in filing FIR – Criminal process cannot be used as substitute for civil remedies or personal vendetta – Parameters of Bhajan Lal case applied – FIR quashed [Paras 10, 16-21].

Mens Rea – Fraudulent Intention at Inception – Essential for Offence of Cheating – Breach of Contract Not Cheating – Failure to perform contractual obligations or deliver goods of agreed specification, without more, does not amount to criminal offence – Culpable intention must exist at the inception – Such intention not established from FIR or chargesheet – Allegations held to be civil in nature [Paras 14-18].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility – FIR Filed Five Years After Transaction – Complainant failed to justify delay – Supreme Court viewed delay as a factor casting doubt on bonafides of prosecution – Held: Delay further supports inference of civil dispute being dressed as criminal complaint [Para 17].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Courts Must Be Vigilant – Observations in Vishal Noble Singh Case Followed – Supreme Court cautioned against use of criminal justice system to achieve oblique motives or settle personal scores – Judicial system must not be burdened with mala fide criminal complaints [Para 22].

Final Decision – Appeal and Writ Petition Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – FIR No. 11/2023 dated 14.02.2023, Chargesheet dated 27.07.2023, and all consequential proceedings quashed – No prima facie case made out for cheating or conspiracy – Criminal law not a tool for enforcement of private contracts [Paras 23-24].

Wildlife Law – Allegations of Animal Smuggling and Welfare Violations – SIT Report – No Illegality Found – Complaints Closed – PILs filed alleging smuggling, laundering and welfare violations by Vantara – Supreme Court appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising retired judges and senior officers – SIT examined voluminous material, conducted site visits, and consulted national and international agencies including CITES authorities – Held: No violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, CITES, or other laws found – Animal imports were backed by valid permits and approvals – Welfare standards exceed benchmarks – Allegations found to be speculative and baseless – Writ Petitions closed – No further complaints on same grounds to be entertained [Paras 1–6, 10, 12(i)–(iv), 18].

Animal Welfare – Compliance with Husbandry and Veterinary Standards – Global Humane Certification – Facilities Exceed Benchmarks – SIT found that Vantara maintained veterinary, husbandry and welfare standards at or above Central Zoo Authority norms – Independent audit by Global Humane Society confirmed international standards were exceeded – Elephants, big cats, birds and primates kept in enriched, species-appropriate habitats – Mortality rates aligned with global zoological averages – Allegations of cruelty or secrecy rejected [Paras 8, 4.2.1–4.2.4].

Regulatory Compliance – Imports and Acquisitions of Animals – No Breach of CITES or Domestic Laws – Acquisition of over 40,000 animals including elephants and exotic species done lawfully – Each transaction subjected to multi-layered scrutiny by Indian and foreign authorities – No evidence of smuggling, laundering or illegal funding found – CITES permits confirmed – No obligation on Indian importers to question legality under exporting country’s domestic laws once valid permits issued – Court affirms validity of such permits [Paras 5, 7, 4.1.1–4.1.7, 4.6.1–4.6.17].

Judicial Oversight – Finality of Proceedings – Bar on Repetitive Complaints – Confidentiality of SIT Report – SIT report accepted – All complaints listed in Schedule A deemed investigated and closed – Directions issued barring future complaints or proceedings based on same allegations – SIT report to remain confidential except for summary – Vantara allowed to pursue remedies for defamation or misinformation – Honorarium granted to SIT members and expert [Paras 6, 12(i)–(vi), 13, 15, 17].

Conservation and Breeding – Legitimate Institutional Effort – Not a Vanity Project – Vantara’s conservation and breeding programs found to be law-compliant and scientifically valid – Breeding of endangered species including cheetahs, lions, vultures, gharials noted – SIT rejected allegations that Vantara was a vanity project or private collection – Institutions employ qualified personnel and operate with MoUs with several states and foreign entities – Programs structured to support global conservation goals [Paras 4.4.1–4.4.5].

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of – SIT report accepted – All listed complaints stand closed – Further complaints on same subject matter barred – SIT report sealed; summary placed on record – Vantara directed to implement SIT recommendations – Liberty granted to Vantara to initiate legal proceedings if necessary – Honorarium directed to be paid to SIT members and experts – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12–15, 17].

Legal Metrology – Search and Seizure – Procedural Violations – Quashing of Notices – Appeal Allowed.

Search and Seizure – Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Appellant (ITC Limited) challenged seizure of 7,600 pre-packed notebooks from its warehouse by Legal Metrology officials for alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Seizure conducted under Section 15 of the 2009 Act without obtaining warrant or recording “reasons to believe” – High Court’s Division Bench upheld seizure, reversing Single Judge’s quashing order – Held: Seizure was illegal – Officials failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Sections 100(4), 165 of the Cr.P.C – No warrant obtained – No reasons to believe recorded – Single witness (driver) not independent – No urgency or exigency pleaded – Procedural violations vitiated entire action [Paras 11-23].

Criminal Procedure – Application of Cr.P.C to Special Acts – Section 15(4) of the Legal Metrology Act mandates compliance with Cr.P.C for search and seizure – Search requires “reasons to believe” and warrant unless exigency shown – Presence of two independent witnesses mandatory under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C – Held: Procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C applicable unless explicitly excluded – Respondent’s claim of “inspection” without warrant unsustainable – Premises, though commercial, not “public” for warrant exemption – CFC packages stored in warehouse do not constitute “wholesale packages” merely due to bulk [Paras 14-20].

Natural Justice – Violation of Principles – Simultaneous issuance of seizure and compounding notices deprived appellant of opportunity to be heard – No hearing granted – No opportunity for objections – Held: Violation of natural justice evident – Division Bench erred in not appreciating legal necessity of procedural compliance [Paras 7.5, 20.1].

Technical Violation – Rule 24 of 2011 Rules – Packages had declarations affixed as labels instead of being printed – Held: Declarations existed – At best, violation was technical – Supported by Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Raj Marketing (2011) 15 SCC 525 – Seizure not justified in absence of material inconsistency in declared particulars [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Search and seizure held illegal – Orders passed by Division Bench of High Court and impugned notices/quasi-criminal proceedings quashed – Order of Single Judge restored – No costs [Paras 23-24].