Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders Act – Inapplicability under PoFA Act – Section 20AA prohibits probation – Probation benefit denied - Section 20AA clearly excludes the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the CrPC to those convicted under the PoFA Act unless the offender is under 18 years of age – The Court held that the provision is explicit, unambiguous, and constitutionally valid – Hence, probation not applicable [Paras 40-42].

Mollification of Sentence – FSS Act Repeal and Savings Clause – Reduced punishment not permitted – Benefit denied - Despite lesser punishment under the FSS Act, the repeal and savings clause under Section 97 preserves penalties under the repealed PoFA Act – The Court held that the presence of such a clause prevents application of lighter sentence from new law – Hence, no reduction in sentence permissible under FSS Act [Paras 43-44].

Adulteration Evidence – Discrepancy in Reports – Sentence converted to fine – Lead appeal partly allowed - In the case of Nagarajan and Selvaraj, the two lab reports on curd adulteration had significant differences—one showing deficiency in fat content, the other meeting the required standard – Applying precedent in C. Mohammed, the Court converted the 6-month imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 30,000 each [Paras 45-46].

Judicial Comity – Reliance on Coordinate Bench despite disagreement – Connected appeal partly allowed - Although the Bench disagreed with the reasoning in A.K. Sarkar & Co., it followed the decision to prevent further litigation, converting Naresh Chandra’s sentence to a fine of Rs. 20,000 in the interest of equity and justice [Paras 47-48].

Decision – Convictions upheld, Sentences modified – Probation relief and sentence reduction under FSS Act denied – However, due to specific factual circumstances and prior rulings, sentences were converted to fines – Appeals partly allowed [Paras 48-51].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act – Mandatory Nature – Rejection of plaint not justified – The suit was filed in 2019 without pre-institution mediation as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act – Relying on the prospective applicability of the Patil Automation decision, the Court held that suits filed prior to 20.08.2022 are not liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint was unjustified; the High Court rightly directed the matter for mediation [Paras 5-13, 34-38, 46-48].

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Application to Section 12A Compliance – Relief sustained – The Court affirmed that the mandate laid down in Patil Automation applies prospectively – It ruled that suits instituted prior to 20.08.2022 without pre-institution mediation cannot be dismissed solely on that ground – The rejection would otherwise result in hardship and procedural prejudice [Paras 47-48, 54].

Urgent Interim Relief – Interpretation under Section 12A Proviso – Non-Applicability in Facts – The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 12A permitting bypass of mediation only applies where urgent interim relief is sought – In the instant case, no such relief was prayed – However, since the suit was instituted before the enforcement of the mandate, rejection was not warranted [Paras 35, 42-45].

Infrastructure Deficiency – Principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia – Applied in Favour of Appellant – The Court acknowledged that mediation infrastructure was lacking at the time of suit filing – Applied equitable maxim that law does not compel a man to do the impossible – Held: Procedural lapse excused in view of institutional shortcoming [Paras 15, 18-19, 49-53].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Affirmed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to keep the suit pending and refer the matter for pre-institution mediation – Held: The approach of the High Court was proper and the appeal warranted no interference [Paras 4, 26, 55].

Suo Motu - POCSO Cases – Setting Up of Exclusive Courts – Implementation of Judicial Directives – Compliance Directed - The Court directed that each district with more than 100 POCSO cases must establish exclusive courts under a Central scheme with appropriate staffing and child-friendly infrastructure – Majority of States complied but high-pendency States (UP, WB, Bihar, TN, Orissa, Maharashtra) were found lacking – Held: Union and State governments must prioritise timely establishment of such courts [Paras 1, 3, 5-6].

Forensic Delay – Effective Functioning of FSLs – Expedited Processing Ordered – Court acknowledged forensic delays as key bottleneck in trial completion – Directed State Forensic Labs to ensure swift analysis and reporting in POCSO cases – Mandated Chief Secretaries to ensure compliance [Para 1].

Child Sensitisation and Support – Appointment of Trained Support Persons and Prosecutors – Awareness Measures – Directions were issued to appoint child-sensitive support persons and prosecutors, and to run public awareness campaigns in cinemas and media with helpline information prominently displayed – Responsibility assigned to Ministry of Women and Child Development [Paras 1, 4].

Timely Trial – Adherence to Statutory Deadlines – States Reminded of Duty – Despite POCSO Act’s time-bound process for investigation and trial, delay persists due to inadequate infrastructure – States instructed to strictly follow the law and ensure completion of investigations and trials within statutory periods [Paras 2, 6].

Closure of Proceedings – Compliance Noted – Matter Concluded – Noting significant implementation of earlier directions and pending areas requiring attention, the Court closed the suo motu proceedings with appreciation for the amicus curiae and counsel – Held: Further monitoring not required at this stage [Paras 7-8].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Division of Interest Periods – Legality of Granting Separate Interest for Pre-reference and Pendente Lite Periods – Arbitral Discretion Upheld - Arbitral Tribunal’s bifurcation of interest into pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award periods is not contrary to Section 31(7)(a) – Held: Tribunal is empowered to award varying interest rates over subdivided segments within the larger period from cause of action to award, consistent with statutory scheme and judicial precedents [Paras 30-35].

Compound Interest – Interpretation of 'Sum' in Section 31(7)(b) – Inclusion of Past Interest in Principal for Future Interest Computation – Permissible - Held: Tribunal did not err in treating awarded interest as part of the “sum” under Section 31(7)(b) – Supreme Court affirms legality of awarding post-award interest on a total comprising principal and interest components – Overrules High Court's reliance on SL Arora and upholds Hyder Consulting and UHL Power judgments [Paras 40-44].

Interest Award – Judicial Review Scope – High Court’s Interference with Arbitral Award Unjustified - Division Bench erred in interfering with a well-reasoned arbitral award in absence of manifest illegality – Tribunal had discretion under Section 31(7) and exercised it judiciously – Supreme Court restores award in full [Paras 36, 45-46].

Family Law - Child Custody – Repetitive IA Requirement – Procedural Burden Criticized – Modified - The Family Court required the father to file fresh interlocutory applications for custody every time he visited India – Held: Such repetitive litigation imposes undue burden on non-custodial parent and child, disrupts planning, and hinders bonding – Supreme Court substituted a structured interim visitation schedule to ensure predictability and preserve parental relationship [Paras 2, 6, 15–17].

Child Welfare – Shared Parenting Principles – Interim Custody Balanced - The Court recognized the importance of regular meaningful contact with both parents – Held: Even while trial is pending, structured parenting time is essential for the child’s emotional well-being – Interim custody split during vacations and alternate weekends, with structured video interaction during the appellant’s overseas postings [Paras 16–20].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Interim Access Orders – Judicial Discretion Guided - High Court’s refusal to grant structured schedule was reversed – Held: Interim arrangements must account for practicalities of international employment and avoid repetitive litigation – Family Court may vary logistics only upon material change, but not reduce access granted [Paras 17–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Permanent Interim Visitation Framework Issued - Supreme Court replaced piecemeal interim custody system with a standing schedule – Directed equal division of vacation time (if appellant present), alternate weekends, routine video contact, and streamlined coordination procedures – Directed Family Court to adjudicate main custody case expeditiously [Paras 19–21].

Environmental Law - Reserved Forest Land – Status upheld since 1879 – Fabricated Gazette Notification exposed – Land in Survey No. 20 originally notified as Reserved Forest in 1879 remained so despite partial de-reservation in 1934 – RRCHS relied on a 1944 notification found to be forged – Held: The land retained its Reserved Forest character, and any contrary claim based on forged records is invalid [Paras 12-21].

Forest (Conservation) Act – Prior approval mandatory – Allotment without Central clearance illegal – The 1980 FC Act prohibits State authorities from de-reserving or allotting forest land without Central Government approval – High officials bypassed this requirement citing an outdated precedent – Held: Such actions were contrary to statutory mandate and Supreme Court's binding orders, rendering the allotment void ab initio [Paras 22-38].

Doctrine of Desuetude – Inapplicable to Forest Law – Forest protection laws not rendered obsolete – RRCHS argued land lost forest status due to non-use – Held: Doctrine of desuetude applies only where statutes fall into complete disuse and contrary practices prevail—Neither condition satisfied here—Forest entries actively maintained and enforced [Paras 39-47].

Bonafide Purchaser – RRCHS complicit – Deals predating allotment invalidate claim – RRCHS entered development agreements and took possession before land was even officially allotted – Held: RRCHS was not a bonafide purchaser; the Chavan Family acted as a front—All transactions violated allotment conditions and were legally impermissible [Paras 48-64].

Alternate Land Claim – Not Entitled – Distinction drawn from precedent – RRCHS sought alternate land relying on prior Supreme Court order – Held: Unlike earlier case where State illegally took over private land, here RRCHS acted illegally with full knowledge of violations—No relief can be granted for self-inflicted illegality [Paras 65-74].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Breached by State Officials – Forest land handed over for private profit – State authorities including Minister and Divisional Commissioner colluded to transfer forest land to builders under the guise of resettlement – Held: This was a grave violation of the public trust doctrine and environmental norms—Such conduct undermines constitutional duties of the State [Paras 75-91].

Nationwide Directions – Forest lands under Revenue control to be handed over – Orders issued to all States/UTs – Supreme Court mandated that all forest lands under Revenue Departments be transferred to Forest Departments – Directed recovery or restoration where lands have been illegally allotted for non-forest use [Paras 92-94].

Decision – Allotment cancelled – Environmental clearance quashed – Forest land to be restored – Appeal disposed – Held: The 11.89 ha land allotted in 1998 and later sold to RRCHS was illegally transferred—Environmental clearance issued to RRCHS is quashed—Land to be restored to Forest Department and nationwide steps for forest protection initiated [Paras 95-96].

Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitration Clause – Interpretation of Dispute Resolution Clause – Article 20 of Concession Agreement – Arbitration Denied – The Supreme Court examined whether Article 20 of the Concession Agreements executed between Municipal Corporations of Delhi and private contractors constituted a valid arbitration agreement – Held: The clause contemplated a mediation process led by the Commissioner, lacked mutual appointment of an arbitrator, did not satisfy the requirements under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and hence could not be treated as an arbitration clause – Textual references such as “final and binding” were not enough to qualify the process as arbitration in absence of intent, neutral adjudicator, and adversarial procedure [Paras 14-51].

Finality of Decision – Not Indicative of Arbitration – Language referring to decisions as “final and binding” in Article 20 was held insufficient to imply arbitration where the mechanism remained internal and non-judicial – Such decisions can be departmental or administrative in nature and do not imply submission to an arbitral tribunal under the Act [Paras 39-41].

Judicial Censure – Drafting of Arbitration Clauses – Observations on Ambiguity – The Court expressed strong concern over ambiguously drafted dispute resolution clauses that prolong litigation instead of facilitating resolution – It called upon legal practitioners to ensure clarity and warned against professional conduct that leads to unnecessary judicial burden – It emphasized the need for accountability and judicial proactivity in rejecting unclear arbitration provisions [Paras 53-59].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Article 20 is Not an Arbitration Clause – Judgments of High Court in SMS Ltd. and CCC Ltd. cases set aside – Judgment in DSC Ltd. upheld – Parties permitted to pursue alternative legal remedies [Paras 60-61].

Criminal Law - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Wildlife Act) - Wildlife Offences – Possession of Scheduled Animal Parts – Conviction Justified – The appellants were caught red-handed with tiger skins, claws, bones and antlers in a car at a petrol pump by the CBI – Two independent witnesses supported the seizure – Held: Recovery was convincingly established and corroborated by witness testimony, justifying conviction under the Wildlife Act and IPC Section 120-B [Paras 3-8, 22].

Investigation Gaps – Failure to Trace Full Chain – No Ground for Acquittal – Investigation failed to trace source or intended buyer of the wildlife items and did not establish age of the articles – Held: These shortcomings do not dismantle the prosecution's core case, which is based on direct recovery and seizure from the accused [Paras 20-21].

Sentencing – Youth of Accused and Lack of Evidence of Poaching – Sentence Reduced – Accused were young at the time of incident and there was no direct evidence they killed the animals – Held: Sentence of six years reduced to three years' simple imprisonment with increased fine, considering mitigating factors [Paras 23-24].

Final Decision – Conviction Maintained, Sentence Modified – Supreme Court confirmed guilt of the appellants but reduced their sentence to three years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000 each – Failure to pay fine will result in an additional three months’ simple imprisonment [Paras 24-26].

Civil Law - Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Land Grabbing – Scope of 'Land Grabbing' and 'Land Grabber' – Interpretation of AP Land Grabbing Act – Criminal Intent Not Mandatory - Under the Act, both narrow and broad meanings of "grab" apply – While mens rea is not always required, unlawful and unauthorized possession or creation of third-party interests suffices – The Court affirmed that the statute covers even non-violent and non-criminal encroachments when done without lawful entitlement [Paras 5-7].

Land Ownership Dispute – Survey Number Mismatch – Registered Titles in Different Survey Numbers – Appellant's Claim Rejected - The appellant claimed title under Survey No. 10 while the land in possession was confirmed by the Commissioner’s report to fall under Survey No. 9 – Held: Possession was unauthorized; appellant failed to rebut the presumption of land grabbing after respondent established prima facie title [Paras 9-12].

Adverse Possession – Lack of Proof of Hostile Possession – Claim Denied - Appellant's claim of adverse possession failed due to absence of proof regarding the start and continuity of hostile possession – Respondent's prompt objection through cooperative society proceedings disproved the claim of adverse, uninterrupted possession [Paras 16].

Jurisdiction and Nature of Proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act – Special Court's Summary Powers Upheld – No Procedural Illegality - Special Court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction – Proceedings follow principles of natural justice and are based on CPC – Burden of proof shifts upon prima facie evidence by complainant – No prejudice caused to appellant due to this scheme [Paras 13-15].

Final Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Special Court and High Court Findings Affirmed - The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal – Observed that the appellant failed to rebut the evidence and presumption raised – Appeal dismissed, upholding the findings of the courts below [Paras 17-18].