Bail – Parity – Not Applicable to Main Conspirators – Bail Cancelled – High Court erred in granting bail to main accused Yashpal and Raman on ground of parity with co-accused – Supreme Court held that respondents were the masterminds of a pre-planned murder involving a contract killer – Their role is distinct and graver than other co-accused – Parity not a valid ground for bail in this case [Paras 7, 15, 20].

Conspiracy and Contract Killing – Premeditated Act – Material on Record – Bail Rejected – Respondents accused of hiring known sharpshooter Vicky @ Kartoos to kill victim Aman Yadav during a public procession – Trial court record includes eyewitness statements, firearm recovery, and planning details – Bail set aside due to serious nature of allegations and risk of influencing witnesses [Paras 3-6, 13-14, 17-19].

Custodial Evasion – Conduct of Accused Considered – Bail Denied – Accused remained absconding for six months, surrendered only after rejection of prior bail – Apprehension of further absconding and witness tampering considered valid – Supreme Court emphasized importance of conduct in assessing bail applications in heinous offences [Paras 17-19].

Role Distinction – Mere Absence of Overt Act Not Sufficient for Bail – Conspiracy Proven – Court clarified that absence of direct action (firing) does not exonerate accused where conspiracy and instigation are clearly established – Respondents' role in planning and facilitating contract killing substantiated by evidence [Paras 12, 16].

Decision – High Court Bail Order Set Aside – Respondents Directed to Surrender – Appeal allowed – High Court’s bail order dated 23/08/2024 quashed – Respondents Yashpal and Raman directed to surrender within two weeks – Trial court to proceed uninfluenced by this order’s observations [Paras 20-22].
 

Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Dependency – Married Daughter and Aged Mother – Partial Relief Granted – High Court erred in denying compensation to 70-year-old mother of deceased – Supreme Court held she was dependent on her daughter and entitled to compensation – Married daughter not proven as dependent and thus eligible only for compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act [Paras 13-17].

Compensation Recalculation – Multiplier Method – Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma Principles Applied – Tribunal's award revised by applying standard principles including future prospects, loss of estate, and filial consortium – Final compensation for mother quantified at Rs. 19,22,356 [Paras 18-19].

Legal Representative vs. Dependent – Section 140 MV Act – Clarification of Manjuri Bera Doctrine – Legal representative may receive statutory compensation without proving dependency, but for enhanced compensation, dependency must be established – Distinction made between statutory entitlement and pecuniary loss [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Compensation of Rs. 19,22,356 awarded to Appellant No. 2 (mother) – High Court order upheld as regards Appellant No. 1 (daughter) – Tribunal’s award modified accordingly [Paras 20-21].
 

Arbitration Law  – Scope of Judicial Review under Section 11 – Confined to Existence of Agreement – High Court Erred – Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts are confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement – Determining arbitrability of individual claims is beyond this scope – Any issue of non-arbitrability should be left for the arbitral tribunal – High Court’s exclusion of certain claims held to be erroneous [Paras 6-12].

Excepted Matters – To Be Considered by Tribunal, Not Court at Appointment Stage – Exclusion Set Aside – High Court excluded claims based on contract clauses 50 and 50.2 as “excepted matters” – Held: This was premature and not permissible under Section 11 – Parties may raise such objections before tribunal, which will decide independently [Paras 3, 12-13].

Precedents – Preference for Larger Bench Decisions – Emaar India Overruled by Later Three-Judge Decision – Court held that reliance on Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP (2023) was misplaced – A more recent three-judge bench in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning (2024 INSC 532), applying In Re: Interplay (2023 INSC 1066), clarified that only prima facie existence of arbitration agreement is to be tested – Jurisdictional limits under Section 11 reaffirmed [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Arbitration to Proceed on All Claims – Supreme Court set aside part of High Court’s order that excluded claims in para 48(ii)-(iv) of claim petition – Held: Tribunal to decide arbitrability without being influenced by High Court’s findings – No costs awarded [Para 13].
 

PIL - Environmental Protection – Illegal Tree Felling in TTZ – Court-Mandated Penalties – Enforced - The Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to impose graded penalties for illegal felling of trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone – Directed recovery of fines ranging from ₹5,000 to ₹25,000 per tree, seizure of timber, and mandatory compensatory plantation – Lok Adalats and District Courts also directed to adopt same measures – Held: Deterrent legal mechanism essential for preserving ecological sanctity of TTZ area surrounding the Taj Mahal [Paras 4–6].

Tree Census – Monitoring and Funding – Time-Bound Compliance Ordered - Forest Research Institute directed to file progress affidavit by August 2025 – Ordered to approach the State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for phased funding – States directed to act without delay – Held: Tree census essential to sustainable forest management and monitoring illegal tree removals [Paras 7–11].

Court Monitoring – Enforcement of CEC Recommendations – Applicant’s Plea Rejected - The Court declined to entertain deviations from Central Empowered Committee’s recommendations – Directed full compliance from the applicant concerned – Held: Judicial deference to expert bodies crucial in environmental governance [Para 12].

Decision – Tree Felling Penalties Enforced – Tree Census Continued – Case Adjourned - Directed District Courts under Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts to implement penalty framework – Tree census to be monitored closely – All connected interlocutory applications listed for follow-up [Paras 6, 11–15].

Accident Claim - Compensation for Motor Accident – Assessment of Income – Reasonable Estimate for Unskilled Worker – Compensation Enhanced - The claimant, a 25-year-old unskilled worker, became bedridden due to an accident while traveling in his employer’s truck – Tribunal assessed income at Rs. 4,500 per month and awarded Rs. 16 lakhs – High Court enhanced income to Rs. 6,000 and compensation to Rs. 25.83 lakhs – Supreme Court applied the principle from Ramachandrappa and Pranay Sethi and accepted Rs. 9,000 as monthly income, applying 140% future prospects and a multiplier of 18 – Held: Loss of future income computed at Rs. 27,21,600, medical expenses of Rs. 2,70,000 and Rs. 6,00,000 for pain and suffering awarded – Total compensation Rs. 35,91,600 [Paras 2, 4-5].

Insurance Liability – Passenger in Goods Vehicle – Contention of Policy Exclusion Not Entertained – No Appeal by Insurer – The insurer argued policy exclusion for goods vehicle passengers – Held: Argument rejected as insurer did not challenge the Tribunal’s finding and no appeal was filed by the insurer – Supreme Court declined to entertain the contention in an appeal for enhancement filed by the claimant [Para 3].

Permanent Disability – Assessment Based on Medical Evidence – 100% Functional Disability Accepted - Medical expert testified disability at 90%, but functionally declared 100% disabled due to vegetative state – Doctor’s cross-examination did not discredit the evidence – Held: High Court right in treating disability as 100% functional for compensation purposes [Para 4].

Final Relief – Modification of Award – Interest and Disbursement Direction - Supreme Court allowed the appeal and modified the award – Directed disbursal of enhanced compensation with 8% interest after deducting previously paid amounts – Payment to be made to claimant's account within two months [Paras 6-7].

Writ - Designation of Senior Advocates – Validity of Indira Jaising Guidelines – Guidelines Partially Overruled – Supreme Court revisits framework laid down in Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 – Held: 100-point assessment and interview system found unworkable and subjective – Paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 deleted – New rule-based regime to be framed by all High Courts and Supreme Court [Paras 74-77, 87(i)-(v)].

Interview System – Constitutionality and Practicality – Interview Abolished – Interview/interaction allocating 25 points deemed insufficient to assess personality and dignity of senior advocates – Held: Brief interviews fail to uphold professional dignity and cannot reliably determine integrity or competence [Paras 67-70].

Inclusivity and Trial Court Advocates – Designation Should Not Be Monopolized – Emphasis on Diversity – Court highlights the need to include advocates from Trial and District Courts and specialized tribunals – Held: Standing at Bar not limited to appearances in Constitutional Courts – Full Court must ensure diverse and equitable designations [Paras 55, 78-79].

Role of Bar Members in Assessment – Committee Composition Modified – Participation of Advocates in Decision-Making Removed – Court disapproves inclusion of bar members in Permanent Committee’s scoring – Held: Decision-making must rest solely with the judiciary as per Section 16(2) of Advocates Act [Paras 63-64].

Applications for Designation – Permissible Practice – Consent Sufficient – Court upholds application-based system for practical reasons – Held: Filing application amounts to implied consent; deserving advocates may still be designated suo motu with consent [Para 77].

Secret Ballot – Discretion of Full Court – Use Not Prohibited – Held: Voting by secret ballot is neither mandatory nor barred – Full Court empowered to decide voting method as per facts of each case [Para 81].

Rule-Making Mandate – Uniform Framework Required – High Courts Directed – All High Courts directed to frame rules within four months – Rules must ensure transparency, fairness, periodic review, and bar-wide consultation [Paras 83-84, 87(ii)].

Decision  – Indira Jaising-1 Para 73.7 Deleted – New Rules Required – Existing processes under Indira Jaising regime may continue; no new applications to be processed without rules framed under this judgment – Applications in current matters allowed and disposed [Paras 87-90].

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Interim Injunction – Conditions Not Fulfilled – Prima Facie Case Absent – Injunction Set Aside – Supreme Court held that High Court erred in granting interim protection to Respondent No.1 who claimed tenancy based on a family settlement – Question of his rights is sub judice – Respondent failed to establish prima facie title, balance of convenience, or irreparable harm – Interim injunction therefore unsustainable [Paras 15-17].

Ownership Rights – Absolute Owner's Development Cannot Be Blocked by Weak Claim – Balance of Convenience Favors Owner – Appellant, being absolute owner of 22,000 sq. ft., was restrained from redevelopment due to 550 sq. ft. claim – Court held this disproportionately affected owner’s commercial rights and obligations – Balance of convenience tilted toward appellant [Paras 16-17].

Claim Based on Family Settlement – Requires Trial – Not Ground for Interim Possession – Respondent No.1 claimed entitlement based on a mediated family settlement – Supreme Court observed that such claims involve factual disputes and require adjudication in trial – Injunction based solely on such claim not justified [Para 17].

Equitable Relief – Protection Granted by Reserving Unit – Status Quo Partially Balanced – To balance equities, Supreme Court directed appellant to reserve one unit of 550 sq. ft. in the redeveloped property to protect Respondent No.1’s interest, subject to outcome of pending civil suit [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Injunction Order Set Aside – Rights to Be Decided in Pending Suit – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Bombay High Court’s injunction order dated 30.07.2024 – Clarified that Small Causes Court shall decide R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 on merits, uninfluenced by this judgment [Paras 19-20].

Competition Law – Dominant Position – Volume-based Target Rebates – Not Discriminatory – The slabbed rebate structure was uniformly applied based on annual purchase volumes – All buyers had equal opportunity to qualify – Rebates justified by operational efficiency of high-temperature continuous furnaces – No foreclosure or discriminatory treatment shown – Held: No abuse under Section 4(2)(a) or (b) of the Act [Paras 32–39].

Functional Rebates and TMLA – Objective Justification Proven – Functional rebate open to all converters agreeing to traceability and no-Chinese tubing conditions – Alleged exclusion unsupported by data – Evidence showed rise in rival converter output and import volumes – Held: Not unfair or restrictive under Section 4(2)(a) and (b) [Paras 40–45].

Margin Squeeze Allegation – Test Not Met – Schott India did not operate in downstream market – Schott Kaisha’s LTTSA did not leave rival converters with unsustainable margins – All independent converters remained profitable – Market showed increased competition and new entry – Held: No violation of Section 4(2)(e) [Paras 46–53].

Tying and Bundling – NGC and NGA Tubes – No Coercion – Aggregated for rebate computation but no requirement to purchase both – Converters had discretion – Rebate design justified by production process – No evidence of foreclosure – Held: Section 4(2)(d) not attracted [Paras 54–58].

Effects-Based Standard – Mandatory Under Section 4 – AAEC must be proven to establish abuse – Court emphasized that effects-based analysis is constitutional and economic necessity – CCI failed to establish adverse impact on competition – Held: Without actual harm, no liability under Section 4 can arise [Paras 59–66].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examination – Violation Found – CCI relied on ex parte statements from conflicted parties without granting Schott India opportunity to cross-examine – COMPAT rightly held this vitiated the findings – Regulation 41(5) mandates fairness – Held: Procedural infirmity was sufficient to invalidate CCI’s order [Paras 68–75].

Final Decision – Appeals Dismissed – CCI’s findings set aside – COMPAT’s decision restored – Alleged abuses not proved and no appreciable adverse effect on competition shown – Kapoor Glass directed to pay ₹5,00,000 costs to Schott India [Paras 77–80].

Civil Law - Contempt of Court – Sub Judice Principle – Freedom of Speech vs. Judicial Sensitivity – Take-Down Order Set Aside – The Supreme Court quashed the Delhi High Court’s interim order directing Wikimedia Foundation to take down certain Wikipedia pages and discussion threads commenting on a pending defamation suit – Held: There was no real or substantial risk of prejudice to the ongoing trial; order was disproportionate and violated constitutional guarantees – Criticism of judicial decisions by media or public, even if robust, is not contempt unless it scandalizes the court or obstructs justice – Judges must avoid hypersensitivity and uphold free speech and public debate on judicial proceedings [Paras 19–35].

Freedom of Expression – Right to Know – Role of Media and Digital Platforms – Judicial Prudence Emphasized – The Court reaffirmed that public debate on sub judice matters is not per se contemptuous – Media and digital platforms like Wikipedia are intermediaries facilitating public knowledge and should not be muzzled through overbroad censorship – Freedom of expression includes criticism of courts and is vital for a healthy democracy – Cited: Sahara India Real Estate, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, Swapnil Tripathi, Imran Pratapgadhi [Paras 22–29, 31–34].

Intermediary Liability – Section 79 IT Act – Not Adjudicated – The Court declined to rule on whether Wikimedia qualified for safe harbor protection as an intermediary under IT Act, as it may affect pending trial – Nonetheless, reaffirmed that mere hosting of content not authored by the intermediary is not enough to infer culpability [Para 32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Direction to Delete Wikipedia Content Quashed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s interim direction that Wikimedia take down user-generated pages and discussions – Held: Courts must uphold free speech and not be seen as suppressing critique of judicial actions unless there is real prejudice to justice administration [Paras 33–34].