Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Declined for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – The Supreme Court held that while prolonged incarceration implicates Article 21, it does not automatically displace the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The Court found that the prosecution material, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy, involving planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction beyond episodic or localised acts. The complexity of the prosecution, nature of evidence, and stage of proceedings did not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and ensure timely examination of protected witnesses. The appeals for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were dismissed, and their prayers for bail rejected [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 193, 194, 195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 430, 431, 432].

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Granted for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals for these appellants, holding that their continued incarceration was not indispensable for a fair trial, given their attributed roles, the nature of material relied upon, and the current stage of proceedings. The Court found that their roles were primarily operational or facilitative, distinct from the conceptual and directive roles attributed to the principal conspirators. The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the incidents was serious, it could not eclipse the constitutional demand for individualized assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention. Stringent conditions were imposed to secure their presence, prevent witness interference, and restrain public commentary. The Court clarified that the grant of bail did not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of allegations or amount to a finding on guilt, but represented a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion. The appeals were allowed, and bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Woman Accused – Article 21, Constitution of India – The Court also considered Gulfisha Fatima's status as a woman as a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment under Article 21 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Article 14, Constitution of India – The Court noted that the prosecution's evidentiary foundation against Gulfisha Fatima, including witness statements and electronic evidence, mirrored that against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who were already on bail, thus invoking the principle of parity. The Court found that denying bail to Gulfisha Fatima in the absence of distinguishing material would constitute hostile discrimination, offending Article 14 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy – UAPA – Individualized Assessment – The Court emphasized that in conspiracy cases, particularly under special statutes like UAPA, an individualized assessment of each accused's role, nature of involvement, and necessity of further detention is crucial. Differentiation is intrinsic to criminal adjudication and operates irrespective of the uniformity of charges framed. The Court must distinguish between conspiratorial centrality and mere association or peripheral presence. The law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act; it demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design, inferred from cumulative conduct [Paras 74, 75, 76, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 262, 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 321, 325, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 360, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 390, 392, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 421, 423, 424, 429, 430, 433, 437].

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – UAPA – Safeguards – The Court imposed stringent conditions for the release on bail, including personal bonds, restrictions on leaving Delhi without permission, surrender of passports, furnishing residential and contact details, prohibition on contacting witnesses or participating in related activities, and abstention from public commentary on the case. These conditions were deemed substantive safeguards for national security, public order, and trial integrity [Paras 434, 435].

Decision: Appeal allowed for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – Appeal dismissed for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – [Paras 431, 433].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Insurance Company – Right to Contest Claim – Quantum of Compensation – Issue whether insurer, when impleaded as a party-respondent in a claim petition, can challenge the award on all available grounds including quantum without restriction to Section 149(2) – Held: Once insurer is impleaded as a party, it is entitled to contest the claim on all grounds and is not confined to defences under Section 149(2) of the Act [Paras 7–7.3].

Section 170, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Permission to Contest on Merits – Rejection by Tribunal – Application filed by insurer under Section 170 rejected by Tribunal – High Court refused to consider challenge to quantum – Held: Rejection of Section 170 application does not bar insurer from contesting claim when it is already impleaded as a party – Such rejection can always be assailed along with final adjudication [Paras 7.3, 7.4].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Three-Judge Bench Decision – Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta – Held: Law laid down by three-Judge Bench is binding – Any contrary view of a smaller Bench has no precedential value – Shila Datta authoritatively settles that insurer impleaded as respondent can contest claim on all grounds [Paras 4, 7].

Motor Accident Claims – Assessment of Income – Quantum – Insurer alleged collusion between parties and improper proof of income of deceased seaman drawing salary in foreign currency – High Court failed to examine quantum on merits – Held: Error in law in depriving insurer of opportunity to contest assessment of compensation [Paras 4, 7.4].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on issue of quantum of compensation – Both parties to be afforded opportunity of hearing – Amount already released to claimant to remain subject to final outcome [Paras 8–9].

Delay – Expeditious Disposal – Accident occurred more than 15 years ago – High Court requested to expedite hearing of appeal on remand [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision on quantum of compensation – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Disputes beyond original notice – Tribunal appointed on State’s request to arbitrate only one dispute – Appellant later raised additional disputes (2 to 4) before Tribunal – High Court set aside award holding lack of notice under Section 21 was fatal – Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction – Arbitration clause was wide – Respondent’s conduct amounted to waiver of objections – Tribunal rightly adjudicated all four disputes – Setting aside award on new grounds not urged before Tribunal or District Court improper [Paras 5.17–5.20, 14–15, 18].

Arbitration – Section 21 Notice – Non-issuance not fatal – Section 21 only fixes limitation – Not a bar to raising new or additional claims before tribunal if arbitration clause permits – Respondent’s reference to arbitration and conduct showed acceptance of full reference – Claimant can raise other disputes even if not mentioned in Section 21 notice – Held: High Court erred in treating Section 21 notice as jurisdictional bar [Paras 16, 18].

Arbitration – Conduct of Parties – Waiver – Respondent failed to object before adjudicator regarding limitation – Later sought to challenge all adjudicator findings – Respondent invited constitution of Tribunal and treated all four disputes as open – Held: Having participated and made submissions, respondent estopped from questioning Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Parties cannot take advantage of their own wrong [Paras 15, 28–29].

Arbitration – Finality of Adjudicator’s Decision – Clause requiring 28-day reference to arbitration for adjudicator’s decision to be challenged – Respondent delayed and later challenged decision – High Court itself found 28-day clause contrary to Section 28(b), Contract Act – Tribunal justified in treating disputes as unsettled – Adjudicator’s decision not binding [Paras 5.18, 15, 26].

Arbitration – Widely Worded Clause – Clause 25.3 allowed reference of any dispute arising out of or in connection with contract – Held: No restriction that only disputes raised in Section 21 notice could be decided – Claimant/respondent both entitled to raise/amend claims/counterclaims under Section 23 of Arbitration Act – Tribunal did not exceed jurisdiction [Paras 18, 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 07.01.2025 in Arbitration Appeal No. 56/2012 set aside – Award of Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.06.2006 upheld in entirety – No order as to costs.

Taxation – Customs Duty – SEZ to DTA Electricity – Levy Held Unconstitutional – Refund Allowed – Customs duty imposed on clearance of electricity from SEZ to DTA by Adani Power Ltd. was earlier struck down in 2015 by Gujarat High Court for lack of a charging event under Section 12 of the Customs Act, misuse of exemption power under Section 25, and violation of constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 265 – That judgment attained finality after this Court dismissed the appeal and review – Subsequent notifications imposing duty at reduced rates (10 paise and 3 paise per unit) challenged in sequel writ – Held: No change in statutory or factual foundation between 2010–2016 period – Notifications were continuation of the same ultra vires levy – Failure to specifically challenge each notification did not preclude relief – High Court erred in denying refund and failing to follow binding coordinate bench precedent [Paras 1–3, 14–19, 25–33, 38–91].

Delegated Legislation – Colourable Exercise – Exemption Notification Used to Impose Levy – Ultra Vires – Notification No. 25/2010-Cus. styled as an “exemption” in fact created a new duty on electricity cleared from SEZ to DTA – Such use of Section 25 exceeded scope of delegated legislation – Same illegality persisted in subsequent Notifications Nos. 91/2010-Cus. and 26/2012-Cus. – Held: Delegate cannot use exemption power to levy tax – All such notifications struck down [Paras 15–17, 54–58, 65].

Judicial Discipline – Coordinate Bench Bound by Precedent – Deviation Without Reference to Larger Bench Impermissible – 2019 Gujarat High Court judgment refusing relief confined 2015 judgment arbitrarily to earlier notification and time period – Held: Coordinate Bench must follow prior binding decision or refer to larger Bench – Deviation without such process invalid – Judicial coherence and finality essential [Paras 75–80].

Restitution – Refund of Unlawful Levy Mandatory – Procedural Technicalities Cannot Defeat Substantive Relief – Appellant entitled to refund of customs duty paid under protest between 16.09.2010 and 15.02.2016 – Direction issued to refund amount without interest within 8 weeks – Authorities directed not to raise hyper-technical objections [Paras 86–91].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gujarat High Court judgment dated 28.06.2019 set aside – Customs authorities directed to refund duty collected during 16.09.2010 to 15.02.2016 – No further demand shall be enforced against appellant for said period – No costs.

Judicial Service – Misconduct – Bail Orders – Appellant, a judicial officer with 27 years of unblemished service, dismissed solely on basis of four bail orders under Excise Act allegedly passed without referring to Section 59-A – Held: Mere omission to cite statutory provision does not amount to misconduct – Orders contained legal reasoning and were supported by material – No evidence of corrupt motive – Dismissal unsustainable [Paras 2–3, 9–16, 40]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Standards for Judicial Officers – Supreme Court reiterates that mere erroneous orders or different conclusions are not sufficient to infer misconduct – Strong protection must be extended to trial judges from frivolous or motivated complaints – Perversity, mala fides, or extraneous considerations must be clearly established before taking punitive action [Paras 18, 27–30, 33–39]

Natural Justice – Flawed Inquiry – Complainant not examined – Stenographer allegedly involved not examined – Departmental witnesses did not support charges – Inquiry officer acted like appellate authority reviewing correctness of bail orders – Findings held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 10, 14–16, 40]

Judicial Independence – Protection of Trial Judiciary – Court cautions against chilling effect of unjustified disciplinary action – Emphasizes need to insulate judicial officers from fear and external pressure – High Court directed to protect upright officers and act only on credible, proven misconduct [Paras 27–29, 36–37, 43–44]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of removal and rejection of appeal set aside – Appellant deemed to have continued in service until superannuation – Directed to be paid full back wages and consequential benefits with 6% interest – Judgment to be circulated to all High Courts.

Civil Law – Impleadment – Necessary and Proper Party – Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Appellant sought impleadment in a suit for recovery of service charges against respondent No.3, claiming to be its successor under Part IX of Companies Act, 1956 – Trial Court allowed impleadment – High Court reversed under Article 227 – Held: Appellant failed to establish valid succession or extinguishment of respondent No.3 – Respondent No.3 continued to exist as partnership firm – Appellant not a necessary or proper party [Paras 29–31, 37–38].

Civil Procedure – Dominus Litis – Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead a party unless such person proves to be a necessary party – No relief sought against the appellant – Decree would not bind non-party – Plaintiffs’ autonomy in choosing parties upheld [Paras 25, 39–40].

Impleadment – Delay and Knowledge – Appellant had knowledge of suit since 2008 through summons acknowledgment bearing its seal – Application for impleadment filed after nearly 9 years in 2018 – Held: Delay unjustified – Application rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 42].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Although High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, once it has intervened to correct an erroneous impleadment order, Supreme Court declined to reverse it – Held: Interference by High Court not illegal or perverse [Paras 20, 43].

Civil Procedure – Successorship – Mere production of certificate of incorporation does not prove legal succession to a partnership firm – No proof of compliance with requirements under Part IX of Companies Act – Appellant failed to prove conversion or continuity from respondent No.3 [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order refusing impleadment upheld – Clarified that any decree in the suit will not be enforced against the appellant – No order as to costs.

Contempt of Court – Compliance – Supreme Court in earlier judgment directed Agra Development Authority to return ₹3,99,100 worth of non-judicial stamp papers – Respondent returned expired original stamp papers but did not refund the monetary value – Held: Act amounts to non-compliance in spirit, even if not in letter – Contempt petition maintainable [Paras 2-3]

Stamp Duty – Refund – Rejection by Registration Department – Department cited Rule 218 of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, which bars refund of physical stamp papers after eight years – Petitioner’s application rejected on limitation grounds – However, Court found that directions in earlier order warranted refund [Paras 4-5, 7]

Equity and Justice – Bonafide Interpretation and Apology – State of U.P. impleaded later and admitted mistake – Offered unconditional apology and stated readiness to comply with Court's order – Supreme Court inclined not to pursue contempt but to ensure compliance [Para 7]

Relief – Refund Ordered – Without entering into merits of limitation, Court directed State of U.P. to refund ₹3,99,100 to petitioner upon return of original stamp papers – Time of two months granted for compliance – Contempt petition against Agra Development Authority closed [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Contempt petition partly allowed – Respondent No. 2 (State of U.P. through Collector, Agra) directed to refund ₹3,99,100 to the petitioner within two months – Contempt proceedings against Agra Development Authority closed – Pending applications disposed.

Labour Law - Workmen’s Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Deceased employed as driver – Fatal accident occurred during course of employment – Owner initially denied but later admitted employment in affidavit – Held: Relationship of employer and employee duly established – High Court erred in reversing Commissioner’s findings [Paras 3.1–3.5, 4–5, 6–8]

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Employer – Admission by vehicle owner in Court and in sworn affidavit confirming employment of deceased on salary and daily batta – Earlier denial held to be to evade liability – Commissioner rightly relied on admission and other evidence – Findings not perverse or erroneous [Paras 6–8]

High Court Error – Reversal Without Justification – High Court relied on earlier counter-affidavit and ignored later evidence – Also misread FIR details – Supreme Court held such conclusions to be factually and legally flawed – Interference unwarranted [Paras 5–6]

Compensation – Restoration of Award – Original award of ₹3,73,747 with 12% interest restored – Insurance company had already deposited amount – Appellant allowed to withdraw full compensation with interest from High Court Registry [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 22.03.2022 set aside – Award dated 30.04.2009 by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation restored – Appellant permitted to withdraw full amount with interest – Registrar General of Telangana High Court directed to release funds within four weeks of filing certified copy.

Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills and Ranges – Uniform Definition – Mining Activities – Ecological Protection – Court noted long-standing ecological significance of Aravallis as “green lungs” of North-Western India and impact of unchecked urbanisation and mining – Divergent definitions adopted by States led to regulatory inconsistencies – Court earlier directed constitution of an expert Committee to evolve a uniform definition – Committee’s report defining Aravalli Hills on elevation criteria of 100 metres and Aravalli Range on proximity of 500 metres accepted in judgment dated 20.11.2025 – Directions issued prohibiting new mining leases pending preparation of a Mining Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) [Paras 1–6].

Environmental Governance – Expert Committee Report – Judicial Review – Post-judgment Challenges – Multiple IAs and applications filed questioning scientific basis of the adopted definition and its implications – Court observed prima facie ambiguity and lack of clarity in the Committee Report and earlier judgment, particularly regarding ecological continuity, exclusion of low-lying hills, and possible regulatory gaps enabling unregulated mining – Public concern and criticism by environmentalists taken note of by Court [Paras 7–8].

Precautionary Principle – Need for Independent Expert Assessment – Court held that before implementation of Committee recommendations and earlier directions, an independent, impartial, high-powered expert opinion is necessary – Issues framed relating to narrowing of protected areas, treatment of inter-hill gaps beyond 500 metres, accuracy of elevation-based exclusion of hills, and long-term ecological consequences – Court proposed constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee to undertake comprehensive scientific and ecological evaluation [Paras 9–10].

Mining Ban – Interim Protection – Aravalli Region – Exercise of Powers under Articles 32 and 142 – To prevent irreversible environmental harm, Court stayed implementation of Committee Report and judgment dated 20.11.2025 – Directed that no new mining leases or renewal of old leases shall be granted in Aravalli Hills and Ranges as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010 without prior permission of the Court – Stay to continue till further orders [Paras 12–13].

Decision:

Notice issued to Union of India and States of NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat – Matter directed to be listed before the Green Bench – Recommendations of Committee and earlier judgment dated 20.11.2025 kept in abeyance – Absolute interim prohibition on grant or renewal of mining permissions in Aravalli Hills and Ranges without leave of Court – Ordered accordingly [Paras 11–14].