Maternity Leave – Section 5 and 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - FR 101(a) and Constitutional Interpretation – Maternity Leave Granted – The appellant, a government teacher in Tamil Nadu, sought maternity leave for her first child born from her second marriage – The leave was denied on the ground that she already had two children from her first marriage – Supreme Court held that since the two children are in custody of her ex-husband and the present childbirth is from her subsisting marriage, the appellant is entitled to maternity benefits – Restriction under FR 101(a) must be interpreted liberally in light of constitutional rights and reproductive autonomy [Paras 4.1, 6, 9-11, 34-37].

Reproductive Rights – Article 21 of the Constitution – Maternity Leave as Reproductive Right – Recognized as a facet of the right to life – The Court emphasized that reproductive autonomy includes the right to bear children and access maternity benefits – Maternity leave is not merely a statutory right but part of the broader right to dignity and health under Article 21 [Paras 13-14, 28-31].

Maternity Benefit Act – Guidance in State Service Rules – Though not directly applicable to State Government employees, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act provide beneficial guidance – Supreme Court acknowledged that the Act allows maternity benefits even for more than two children, though with a reduced leave period, reinforcing the liberal interpretation required for FR 101(a) [Paras 18-20, 33].

International Norms – Relevance of CEDAW and International Covenants – The judgment draws heavily on international instruments such as CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to underscore that maternity protection is a human right – Reinforces the obligation of the State to provide maternity benefits as part of respect for international law [Paras 22-27].

Final Decision – Division Bench Judgment Set Aside – Maternity Leave Granted – Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment of the Madras High Court and directed the State to release maternity benefits under FR 101(a) to the appellant within two months [Paras 36-38].

Mining Leases – Validity of DMF Contribution Policy – Sections 9B & 15A of MMDR Act – Demand Upheld – The appellant, a sand mining lessee, challenged a Demand Notice requiring payment of 10% of the bid amount to the DMF Trust, asserting violation of Section 9B of the 1957 Act – The Supreme Court held that Section 9B is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14 – Further, State power under Sections 15 and 15A to prescribe DMF contributions is valid – The 2017 State Policy was properly exercised under Rule 68 of the 1963 Rules and was binding – Demand found to be in conformity with Rule 10(2) of the 2017 DMF Rules – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–26].

Arbitration Law - Statutory arbitration under SARFAESI Act - Scope of Section 11 – Statutory Arbitration Mandated – Interpretation of “any dispute relating to securitisation or reconstruction or non-payment” – Held: Section 11 of SARFAESI Act mandates arbitration for disputes between banks, financial institutions, ARCs, or qualified buyers where such disputes relate to securitisation, reconstruction, or non-payment of dues including interest – The provision creates a legal fiction that presumes the existence of a written arbitration agreement – DRT has no jurisdiction in such matters [Paras 42, 62-66, 124].

Inter-Bank Disputes – Priority of Charges – Arbitration Mandatory – Dispute regarding competing security interests over borrower’s stocks between two banks – Though rights were claimed via hypothecation and pledge respectively, the core issue was priority – Held: Even if one bank claims pledge (excluded under Section 31(b)), the dispute over priority inter se banks falls within Section 11 and must be referred to arbitration [Paras 74, 84].

Borrower Exception – Lender-Turned-Borrower Not Covered by Section 11 – A bank or financial institution, if acting as a borrower, cannot invoke Section 11 – Definition of “borrower” in Section 2(f) includes such entities – Held: Section 11 applies only when both parties act in their capacity as secured creditors, not when one acts as a borrower [Paras 85-92].

Written Arbitration Agreement – Not Required – Deemed Consent under Section 11 – Legal Fiction Created – Held: Section 11 expressly uses the phrase “as if parties have consented in writing” – This statutory fiction removes requirement of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act – View in Federal Bank held incorrect, Oriental Bank of Commerce affirmed as correct [Paras 93-107].

Mandatory Nature of Section 11 – Use of “Shall” – No Forum Shopping Permitted – Held: The word “shall” in Section 11 signifies compulsion – Arbitration under Section 11 is the sole remedy for eligible disputes – DRT has no jurisdiction – SARFAESI aims at speedier recovery and efficient resolution, which could be frustrated if inter-se bank disputes are entertained by DRT [Paras 108-118].

AMRCD Memorandum – Not Applicable – Contractual Disputes Requirement – Held: AMRCD guidelines only apply to disputes arising out of commercial contracts between CPSEs – Disputes arising out of competing security interests over borrower’s assets under SARFAESI Act not covered – Cannot override a statutory mandate under Section 11 [Paras 119-123].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s order referring parties to arbitration under Section 11 – Dispute regarding security interest priority is arbitrable under SARFAESI Act – DRT rightly declined jurisdiction – No costs awarded [Paras 124-129].

Service Law - Organised Group-A Service Status – Full Recognition of CAPFs as OGAS – DoPT OM Binding – High Court Error – The Court clarified that its earlier decision in Harananda (2019) was not limited to NFFU but affirmed full OGAS status for CAPFs – Held: Once declared OGAS, CAPFs must be treated as such for all cadre matters – High Court's failure to consider the DoPT OM dated 12.07.2019 rendered its ruling flawed [Paras 32, 36, 37].

Cadre Review and Service Rules – Mandate to Complete by Timeline – Direction Issued – The Court mandated completion of cadre review and amendment of recruitment rules within six months – DoPT to decide within three months after receiving MHA’s report – Held: Officers must be heard during review; cadre structure must reflect OGAS norms [Paras 45(1)-(4)].

Deputation of IPS Officers – Progressive Reduction Ordered – Stagnation Acknowledged – Court Recognized Need for Reform - The practice of deputation of IPS officers in senior ranks of CAPFs found to cause stagnation among cadre officers – Held: While policy matters lie within executive domain, excessive deputation undermines service mobility – Directed gradual reduction of deputation posts up to SAG within two years [Paras 15, 41, 45(5)].

Constitutional Equality – Unequal Treatment Violates Articles 14 and 16 – Mandate for Parity – Disparity in promotional norms and denial of OGAS benefits to CAPF officers despite equal standing held to violate fundamental rights – Held: Government cannot pick and choose implementation post-OGAS declaration – Parity must follow recognition [Paras 16.7, 19.2, 23, 24.1].

Policy Implementation – OM dated 12.07.2019 Has Legal Consequence – Government Bound – DoPT’s 2019 OM confirming CAPFs' OGAS status was held conclusive and binding – Held: Benefits such as NFFU, NFSG, cadre restructuring, and rule amendments are legal consequences of OGAS recognition [Paras 33-36, 43].

Decision – Civil Appeals Allowed – High Court Ruling Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s limited interpretation of OGAS status, and directed implementation of full OGAS benefits, cadre review, and structural changes – IPS deputation to be limited progressively [Paras 45-47].

Service Law - Pension - Pension Arrears – Switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI Circulars of 2020 – No Arrears Payable – Respondent retired in 2014 and later exercised option under 2020 RBI Circulars to switch from CPF to Pension Scheme – RBI provided that pension would only be paid prospectively from 01.07.2020 – Supreme Court upheld validity of this cut-off date – Held: No legal or constitutional right to claim retrospective pension benefits once scheme terms were accepted in full [Paras 1–20, 27–42].

Policy Decision – Cut-off Date – Judicial Review Limited – Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts must defer to government’s financial and policy considerations in fixing cut-off dates – Cited binding precedents to stress that cut-off dates based on economic rationale and viability are not arbitrary – Held: Division Bench erred in granting arrears; policy valid [Paras 22–36].

Approbate and Reprobate – Entire Scheme Must Be Accepted or Rejected – Partial Challenge Impermissible – Respondent accepted all conditions of 2020 scheme, including pension start date and refund of CPF with interest – Later challenge to denial of arrears was inconsistent with settled contractual principles – Held: One cannot accept beneficial terms and contest burdensome ones under same scheme [Paras 17, 37–40].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Quashed – Single Judge Order Restored – Supreme Court set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench’s direction to grant pension from retirement date – Restored Single Judge’s order dismissing writ petition – Respondent to receive pension only from 01.07.2020, no arrears payable [Paras 41–42].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Triable Issues Exist – Rejection Improper – High Court erroneously rejected the plaint holding that it disclosed no cause of action – Supreme Court held that revocation of power of attorney and dispute over subsequent sale deeds raised serious triable issues – Held: Rejection of plaint unwarranted at preliminary stage where pleadings disclosed a cause of action regarding title and invalidity of transactions [Paras 6-14].

Unregistered Documents – Effect on Title Transfer – Agreement to Sell and GPA – No Transfer of Ownership – Sale deeds executed on basis of an unregistered and revoked power of attorney were challenged – Supreme Court reiterated settled law that unregistered agreements to sell or GPA do not create title or transfer rights in immovable property – Held: Respondent could not rely on such documents to validate conveyance [Paras 9-9.4].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Dispute Over Title – Not Barred by Revenue Law – Appellants sought declaratory reliefs including title and possession – Revenue court jurisdiction under Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act held inapplicable – Held: Title disputes lie within exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts; mutation entries do not confer ownership [Paras 10-10.1].

Cause of Action – Distinct Reliefs – Partial Defect Does Not Warrant Full Rejection – Supreme Court reiterated that if even one cause of action is maintainable, the plaint must be tried – High Court erred in treating secondary reliefs as academic and rejecting entire suit – Held: Proper approach is to proceed with suit on triable issues rather than reject in entirety [Para 9.6, 9.7].

Final Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Plaint Restored – Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court order rejecting plaint quashed – Order of Additional District Judge, Jodhpur restored – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit on merits [Para 14].

Service Law - Disability Rights – Regularisation Under G.O. – Denial of Probation and Promotion – Held Discriminatory – Appellants, all persons with benchmark disabilities, were reappointed under G.O. dated 18/05/2013 to supernumerary posts after temporary service under Rule 9(a)(i) KS & SSR – Subsequently denied declaration of probation and promotional avenues by G.O. dated 03/02/2016 – Held: The later G.O. sought to withdraw vested service rights, causing discrimination in violation of Article 14 – Supreme Court set aside the impugned G.O. [Paras 1–3, 21–24].

Service Jurisprudence – Supernumerary Appointments – Nature and Legal Rights – Court held that reappointments under the 2013 G.O. amounted to regular appointments including probationary status – Denial of equal service treatment to disabled employees on that basis was impermissible – Held: Once appointed to posts with probation, denial of seniority and promotion by subsequent clarification is illegal [Paras 6, 20–23].

Article 14 – Equality in Public Employment – Disparate Treatment of Disabled Employees – Violation Found – Appellants resigned from other secure posts expecting regularization – Arbitrary denial of parity solely due to method of appointment struck down – Held: Appointments under G.O. 18/05/2013 gave rise to legitimate expectations, and Clause 3.5 of G.O. 03/02/2016 could not override them [Paras 11–13, 23].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – G.O. 03/02/2016 Quashed – Rights Restored – Supreme Court allowed all appeals – Set aside Kerala High Court Division Bench judgments – Restored orders of Single Judge and Kerala Administrative Tribunal that had granted full service benefits including probation and promotion to the appellants [Para 24].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint  – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Existence of Cause of Action – Rejection Set Aside – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order which had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: The plaint disclosed triable issues including whether the sale deeds executed after the revocation of an unregistered power of attorney were valid – The High Court erred in rejecting the plaint by failing to appreciate that the suit was based on two distinct causes of action, particularly the one arising after the revocation of the power of attorney [Paras 8-9.6].

Registration Act – Unregistered Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney – Effect on Title – No Title Passed – Documents executed by Respondent No.1 including an unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney do not confer ownership or title under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act – Such documents are inadmissible in evidence for transfer of ownership and can only be used for collateral purposes or in a suit for specific performance – In this case, no such suit for specific performance was ever filed by the respondents – Hence, Respondent No.1 had no authority to execute the sale deeds [Paras 9-9.2].

Transfer of Property – Sale of Immovable Property – Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act – Agreement to Sell Does Not Create Title – It was reaffirmed that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in or charge on the immovable property – Execution of the sale deed without a valid, registered power of attorney was invalid in law [Paras 9.2-9.3].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Applicability – Civil Jurisdiction Upheld – The dispute relates to ownership and title of immovable property, which is triable by civil courts – Revenue records and mutation entries do not confer title – Hence, the bar under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not apply to this case [Paras 10].

Court Fee Deficiency – Opportunity to Rectify – Rejection Improper – It was held that a plaint cannot be rejected solely for insufficient court fees without first affording the plaintiff an opportunity to correct the deficiency – This principle was reaffirmed in line with settled precedents [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order of the High Court rejecting the plaint is set aside – Order of the trial court refusing to reject the plaint is restored – Trial court directed to proceed with the suit on merits uninfluenced by any observations in this judgment – No order as to costs [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Limits under Section 239 CrPC – Special Court and High Court Orders Set Aside – Special Court and High Court discharged accused in ₹21 crore MSP fraud based on CCI's internal letter stating no loss – Supreme Court held this reliance was impermissible under Section 239 CrPC – Held: At charge stage, court can only consider prosecution material under Section 173 CrPC, not defence documents—Discharge orders illegal [Paras 13–28].

Corruption and Criminal Conspiracy – Cotton Procurement Scam – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Accused allegedly purchased cotton below MSP, hoarded it, and resold it via benami farmers to CCI at MSP using forged documents—Involvement of CCI officer (A-1) and son (A-3) established—Forgery confirmed by forensic analysis—Held: Material in charge sheet sufficient to proceed to trial—Discharge not warranted [Paras 6–8, 17–20, 27].

Judicial Process – Mini Trial at Discharge Stage Impermissible – Special Court’s evaluation of CCI's exoneration letter akin to a trial verdict rather than a charge analysis—Held: Courts below erroneously assessed defence case and presumed acquittal—Judicial discretion under Section 239 must not extend to considering accused’s evidence [Paras 20–26].

Criminal Procedure – Precedents – Accused Cannot Rely on External Evidence at Charge Stage – Court relied on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh—Reiterated: Only prosecution's material under Section 173 CrPC can be examined at discharge—Accused cannot invoke right to file or rely on documents at framing of charge [Paras 24–26].

Decision – Criminal appeals allowed – Orders of discharge passed by Special Court and affirmed by High Court quashed – Discharge applications dismissed – Trial Court directed to reconsider charges strictly as per Section 239 CrPC, uninfluenced by defence material or observations in this judgment [Paras 27–28].