Criminal Procedural Law  – Powers of Sessions Court under Section 193 CrPC – Summoning of Additional Accused – Supreme Court upheld the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court summoning the petitioner, not named in the charge-sheet, for trial of offences under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. It was held that upon committal of a case triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Sessions Judge, as a court of original jurisdiction, is empowered under Section 193 CrPC to summon any person against whom there is prima facie material on record, prior to commencement of trial, without having to wait for evidence to be led or for the stage under Section 319 CrPC. The petition was dismissed, and expeditious trial was directed [Paras 2-107].

Cognizance – Concept and Stage – Sections 190, 200, 202, 209 CrPC – The judgment clarified that 'cognizance' is of the offence, not the offender, and is taken only once—either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate takes cognizance upon judicial application of mind to the complaint or police report and, in cases triable exclusively by Sessions, commits the case under Section 209 CrPC [Paras 29-56].

Magistrate’s Role and Duty – Judicial Application of Mind – It was reiterated that the Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion and not act mechanically while taking cognizance, examining whether the materials disclose a prima facie case before proceeding to commit the case to the Sessions Court. The process is intended to safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions [Paras 31-33].

Committal of “Case” Not “Accused” – The transition from the old Code to the CrPC, 1973 shifts focus from committal of the “accused” to committal of the “case”, thus empowering the Sessions Court to act upon the entirety of the offence, and not being restricted to the individuals named by the police [Paras 77-83].

Sessions Court’s Power to Summon Under Section 193 CrPC – Upon committal, the Sessions Court’s embargo to take cognizance is lifted, and the court is competent to summon any person against whom material is found in the case file. This summoning is not a fresh “taking of cognizance” but is incidental to the jurisdiction conferred by committal [Paras 80-84, 90, 103].

Distinction from Section 319 CrPC – The Sessions Court’s power under Section 193 CrPC to summon an additional accused at the pre-trial stage (based on the police report/case record) is distinct from the power under Section 319 CrPC, which is exercisable only during trial on the basis of evidence adduced [Paras 85, 101].

Duty to Bring Real Offenders to Trial – Both Magistrate and Sessions Court, after cognizance, have the duty to bring before the court all those prima facie implicated in the offence, even if not named by the police. This is essential for ensuring substantive justice and fairness [Paras 92-93, 100].

Summary of Law Declared –

(i) Commitment under Sections 209 and 193 CrPC is of the “case” and not merely the “accused”;

(ii) The Sessions Court assumes original jurisdiction on committal and may summon additional accused if warranted by the record;

(iii) Section 319 CrPC is an additional power to summon others at the trial stage on the basis of evidence;

(iv) The criminal process aims to bring all real offenders to justice, and procedural law must be interpreted to advance, not hinder, this purpose [Paras 103].

Decision – SLP Dismissed – Summoning Upheld – The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upheld the summoning order, and directed that charges be framed and trial completed within six months, also ordering circulation of the judgment to all High Courts [Paras 104-107].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Rape and House-Trespass – Sections 376(2), 450 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act – Upheld – The appellant was convicted for house trespass and rape of a minor girl. The conviction was based primarily on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by the testimony of her minor brother and supporting witnesses. The Supreme Court found the evidence trustworthy, ruled that minor inconsistencies did not affect the core of the case, and reiterated that absence of injuries or medical evidence is not fatal if the victim’s evidence is reliable. The appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 5, 5.2–5.7, 6, 6.2–7].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency for Conviction – The Court reaffirmed that conviction for rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found natural and trustworthy, even in the absence of medical corroboration—Court cited settled law that victim’s evidence stands on a par with an injured witness and requires no further corroboration if credible [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.3–5.5.7, 6.2].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries or Corroboration – Not Fatal – The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix or lack of positive medical evidence does not by itself discredit the prosecution case, so long as the evidence of the prosecutrix is otherwise reliable and inspires confidence—Reference made to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.3–5.5.7].

Minority of Victim – Proof – The prosecution successfully proved the minority of the victim through her school certificate and corroborating oral evidence—Objections regarding age were held to be baseless [Para 5].

Minor Discrepancies in Evidence – Not Material – Minor contradictions in witness statements do not go to the root of the case and are to be regarded as a hallmark of truth, unless they strike at the core of the prosecution case—Reliance placed on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj [Paras 5.7, 5.7.1–5.7.3].

Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court—Conviction and sentence upheld, and the appeal dismissed [Paras 6.3, 7].

Criminal Law  – Murder  – Acquittal on Ground of Inadmissible Confessional FIR – Sections 302, 304 Part I IPC and Sections 8, 21, 25, 27 Indian Evidence Act – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for murder, finding that the High Court erred in relying on the accused's confessional FIR, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The medical and circumstantial evidence were held insufficient to sustain conviction, especially as most witnesses turned hostile and discovery evidence was not proved as per law. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was incorrectly applied by the High Court, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith [Paras 2-53].

Confessional FIR – Admissibility – Section 25, Indian Evidence Act – Acquittal Ordered – The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred by relying on a confessional FIR lodged by the accused-appellant himself, which led to his conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) later altered to Section 304 Part I by the High Court—Held: FIR containing confession before police is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; such confession cannot be used to corroborate medical evidence against the maker unless he testifies—Conviction based solely on confessional FIR is unsustainable [Paras 14-26].

Medical Evidence – Value of Expert Testimony – Advisory Character – The Court reiterated that expert (medical) evidence is only advisory and not substantive proof of guilt—Conviction cannot rest solely on medical opinion; corroboration by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence is necessary—Most panch witnesses had turned hostile and panchnama contents were not proved according to law [Paras 27-29].

Discovery and Conduct Evidence – Section 27 & Section 8, Evidence Act – The prosecution failed to establish that any statement made by the accused led to discovery of fact admissible under Section 27—While the conduct of accused (e.g., lodging FIR, pointing out articles) may be relevant under Section 8, such conduct alone is insufficient for conviction in serious offences without other cogent evidence [Paras 30-36].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Incorrect Application – The High Court erred in extending benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in the absence of any premeditation or sudden fight, and when the appellant took undue advantage and acted in a cruel or unusual manner; deceased was unarmed and there was no mutual combat—Proper application of Exception 4 requires all ingredients to be satisfied including mutual provocation and absence of undue advantage [Paras 37-50].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal – The Supreme Court held that in the absence of legally admissible evidence, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable—Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges and to be set free forthwith [Paras 51-53].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Forged Settlement Agreement – Decree Set Aside – Alleged Fraudulent Compromise – The petitioner obtained a favorable decree from the Supreme Court in terms of an alleged settlement agreement dated 24.10.2024, resulting in the setting aside of concurrent findings by three lower courts dismissing a suit for specific performance – Respondent filed a Miscellaneous Application alleging he never entered into the said settlement or engaged any counsel in the Supreme Court – Held: Prima facie case of fraud established, Supreme Court recalled its earlier order dated 13.12.2024 and restored the appeal – Bar Council of India directed to conduct inquiry into the involvement of advocates and authenticity of representation [Paras 3-4, 6-7].

Fraud on Court – Unauthorized Representation – Caveat Abuse – Order Recalled – Respondent alleged unauthorized filing of caveat and fraudulent appearance of counsels – Court noted discrepancies in appearance records and denials by advocates – Ordered detailed inquiry into the conduct and role of the advocates, and reserved further directions, including criminal proceedings – Restored SLP to file for fresh hearing [Paras 4-6].

Professional Misconduct – Bar Council of India Inquiry – Supreme Court expressed serious concern over possible misconduct and unethical practices in representing parties without authority – Directed Bar Council to complete inquiry and submit report by October 2025 – Case listed for further proceedings in November 2025 [Para 7].

Final Decision – Order dated 13.12.2024 recalled – Civil Appeal No. 14414/2024 restored to file – Bar Council of India directed to submit report – Case to be listed for further hearing in November 2025 [Para 8].

Environmental Law – Amendments to Water and Air Acts – Substitution of Imprisonment with Monetary Penalties – New Adjudicatory Framework – Court noted that 2023–2024 amendments replaced imprisonment with fines (up to ₹15 lakhs) for most contraventions, introducing adjudicating officers and appeals to the NGT – Punishment by imprisonment retained only for limited contraventions such as failure to obtain consent or pay penalties – Court highlighted these changes as part of decriminalisation and trust-based governance reforms [Paras 3-7].

Regulatory Asymmetry – Variance Between Water and Air Acts – After amendments, significant asymmetry exists: (i) Appeals under Water Act go to State Appellate Authority; under Air Act, appellate jurisdiction is wider; (ii) Revisional powers with State Governments exist under Water Act, not under Air Act; (iii) Directions under Section 33A of Water Act are appealable to NGT, but Section 31A Air Act directions are not – Composite orders under both Acts create confusion – Court held such inconsistency undesirable and a source of unnecessary litigation [Paras 9-12].

Judicial Precedent – TNPCB v. Sterlite Industries – Applicability – Court reiterated earlier holding that directions under Section 31A of Air Act are not appealable, unlike Water Act Section 33A directions – The statutory scheme intentionally differentiates between “orders” and “directions” – Confirms need for harmonisation of regulatory appellate structures [Para 12].

Climate Change Imperative – Need for Effective Legal Framework – Court emphasised that environmental laws from 1974–1986 were enacted in a different era – With climate change posing imminent threats, environmental regulatory framework must be redesigned for clarity, efficiency, and adaptability – Inconsistencies delay enforcement and impair public health protection [Paras 10, 14].

Union of India Impleaded – MoEFCC to Respond – To address statutory inconsistencies and evolving environmental governance needs, Court impleaded Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) as party respondent – Directed appellant’s counsel to file impleadment application – Appointed Ms. Shibani Ghosh and Mr. Ninad Laud as amici curiae to assist Court – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment delivered in favour of DPCC – Reportable judgment signed and placed on record [Para 2].

Criminal Law – Section 482 CrPC – Challenge to Dismissal of Petition – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s order dismissing her petition under Section 482 CrPC concerning the non-taking of cognizance against her in-laws despite allegations in her Section 164 CrPC statement – The Investigating Officer had filed a chargesheet only against the husband (since deceased), and failed to communicate this action to the appellant, thereby denying her the opportunity to file a protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC – The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the core issue of non-communication of the police report under Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC – Held: Appeal allowed, High Court’s order set aside, and petition restored for fresh hearing [Paras 3-10].

Criminal Proceedings – Non-communication of police report – Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC – Duty of Investigating Officer – Appeal Allowed - The appellant was not served a copy of the police report and remained unaware of the action taken under the FIR – The non-communication prevented her from exercising her statutory right to file a protest petition – The High Court’s failure to address this grievance was held to be a serious omission warranting interference [Paras 5-6].

Cognizance – Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 362 CrPC – Review not Permissible – Appellant’s application seeking cognizance against in-laws was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that it would amount to reviewing the earlier order taking cognizance only against the husband – The Supreme Court observed that the focus should have been on whether the appellant was ever informed about the outcome of the investigation as per Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC [Para 3(v)].

Right to Protest Petition – Section 173(8) CrPC – Precondition of Communication – Protest Petition Denied - Since the appellant was not informed about the police report, she was effectively denied the opportunity to challenge the exclusion of her in-laws from the chargesheet by filing a protest petition – This vitiated the process and rendered the dismissal of her petition unsustainable [Paras 5-7].

Failure of High Court – Lack of Reasoning – Cryptic Order – Set Aside - The High Court’s order dismissing the petition was held to be cryptic and lacking judicial reasoning – The Supreme Court emphasised that the real issue in controversy, namely, whether the appellant was communicated the action taken under the FIR, was not even considered [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Petition Restored – Matter Remanded – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order dated 10.10.2024 – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 378 of 2022 was directed to be restored and heard along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8362 of 2021 within four months – All contentions of parties left open [Paras 8-10].

Contempt of Court – Advocates Act – Enrolment Fees – Compliance with Judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India – Petition Closed – Petitioner alleged that Karnataka State Bar Council was collecting fees of ₹6,800 and ₹25,000 as “optional charges” in addition to statutory enrolment fees – Bar Council of India affidavit confirmed that most State Bar Councils charge only ₹750 (General) / ₹125 (SC/ST), except Karnataka which collects additional amounts – Supreme Court held that there is nothing like “optional fees” and no SBC/BCI can collect any sum beyond Section 24(1)(f) of Advocates Act – Directions in para 109 of the main judgment reiterated – Contempt petition closed with clarification that such additional collections must stop [Paras 2, 5-9].

Enrolment Fee – Scope of Section 24(1)(f), Advocates Act – Statutory Limit – Section 24(1)(f) specifically prescribes the fiscal preconditions for enrolment – State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India cannot demand any fee other than the prescribed enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any – Any additional or “optional” charge violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Supreme Court reiterated that only ₹750 (General) and ₹125 (SC/ST) can be charged [Paras 4, 8].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Directions Already Enforced by BCI – No Wilful Disobedience – BCI demonstrated issuance of circulars directing compliance and received responses from State Bar Councils affirming adherence – Court accepted that directions are substantially complied with – However, clarified that Karnataka’s practice of charging optional fees is impermissible and must cease forthwith – Petition closed without further coercive orders [Paras 4-7, 9-10].

Decision – Petition Closed – Clarification Issued – Supreme Court reiterated that no additional or optional enrolment fee can be charged by any SBC or BCI beyond statutory prescription – Contempt petition disposed of with these observations [Paras 7-11].

Electricity Act - Tariff Determination – Wind Energy Projects – Accelerated Depreciation – Separate Tariff Permitted – Wind energy producers who did not avail of accelerated depreciation under the Income Tax Act are entitled to seek case-specific tariff determination from the GERC despite having entered into PPAs with a fixed tariff meant for those availing such depreciation – Held: The Commission’s order permitting case-wise determination stands affirmed – [Paras 5, 22-25].

PPA and Regulatory Oversight – Statutory Price Prevails – Even where PPAs contain fixed tariffs, regulatory commissions retain statutory authority to review and revise such tariffs in public interest – Held: The GERC is not bound by the tariff in PPAs if it contradicts the statutory scheme and policy objectives – [Paras 14, 21].

Electricity Act, 2003 – Role of State-Instrumentality – GUVNL Bound by Renewable Energy Policies – The Court emphasized that GUVNL, as a state instrumentality, must comply with government policy promoting renewable energy, and cannot act solely on commercial interests like a private entity – [Paras 17-20, 24].

Income Tax Act – Exercise of Depreciation Option – Timing Critical – Held: The option to choose accelerated depreciation can only be exercised when filing returns, and not before – Hence, PPAs executed before such statutory option is exercised cannot bind producers permanently to a tariff applicable only to those availing depreciation – [Paras 22-23].

Estoppel – No Written Commitment by Developers – No Estoppel Applies – In absence of a written commitment by the power producers to avail accelerated depreciation, GUVNL cannot prevent them from seeking a revised tariff – [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Court upheld the findings of the GERC and APTEL allowing wind energy producers to claim separate tariff – GUVNL’s conduct of enforcing inapplicable tariff without consent or statutory backing held untenable – [Para 25].

Environmental Law - Powers of Pollution Control Boards – Scope of Sections 33A and 31A – Restitutionary vs Punitive Action – Held: Pollution Control Boards can impose compensatory or restitutionary damages or require bank guarantees under Sections 33A and 31A as an ex-ante measure – This power is distinct from the punitive penalties that can only be imposed via adjudication under Chapters VI and VII of the Air and Water Acts respectively – Exercise of this power must be guided by transparency and principles of natural justice to be detailed in subordinate legislation [Paras 2, 18-20, 27-30, 33-36].

Polluter Pays Principle – Applicability in Indian Environmental Law – Remedial and Preventive Measures Permissible – Held: The principle includes not only compensation and restoration after environmental damage, but also anticipatory measures to avoid pollution – Boards have a duty to act even in the absence of proven damage, where a risk of environmental degradation exists [Paras 20-23, 27(III)-(IV)].

Distinction Between Penalty and Environmental Damages – Penal Action Requires Statutory Procedure – Held: Monetary penalties or imprisonment for offences under Water and Air Acts require a fair trial – However, Boards may recover costs for environmental restoration and preventive action without resorting to punitive procedures, provided such powers are exercised judiciously [Paras 18-19, 24-25, 30-31].

Interpretation of Environmental Statutes – Need for Expansive and Purpose-Oriented Interpretation – Held: Given constitutional obligations under Articles 48A and 51A, and the preventive goals of environmental legislation, Sections 33A and 31A must be construed to include compensatory directions, aligning with statutory and constitutional mandates [Paras 16-17, 27(V)].

Decision – High Court’s restrictive reading of Sections 33A and 31A set aside – Pollution Control Boards empowered to issue directions imposing environmental damages or requiring bank guarantees – However, show cause notices issued in 2006 not to be revived – Amounts already collected to be refunded by DPCC within six weeks – Subordinate legislation required to operationalise these powers transparently and fairly [Paras 28-29, 37-39].