Writ Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Appellant enrolled in BSF dismissed from service following inquiry into second marriage without permission - Dismissal order passed in West Bengal - Statutory petition rejected in Jammu - Writ petition filed in Delhi High Court on basis that BSF Headquarters and Ministry of Home Affairs located in Delhi - High Court dismissed citing forum non conveniens and cause of action arising elsewhere - Supreme Court observed that under Article 226(1) jurisdiction is referable to the situs of the respondent - Union of India and Director General BSF are necessary parties with offices in Delhi - Held - Delhi High Court possesses jurisdiction - Doctrine of forum non conveniens misapplied in context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226(1) where respondents are located within the territory - Impugned order set aside and writ petition revived - [Paras 1-40].

Writ Law - Forum Non Conveniens - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Principles - Choice of forum - Doctrine applies when multiple fora available and one is more convenient - However where a constitutional remedy is pursued under Article 226(1) based on the situs of the respondent the doctrine rarely applies - Suitor choosing forum convenient to the respondents cannot be non-suited - Records of the case for Certiorari usually available at respondent office - Held - Application of the doctrine to deny access to justice under Article 226(1) is self-defeating - [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law - Precedent - Conflict of coordinate benches - Supreme Court noted discordant notes between Abrar Ali and Kalyan Banerjee - Reconciliation of conflict regarding jurisdiction in service matters for CAPF personnel - Held - Notwithstanding cause of action arising elsewhere the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(1) due to the situs of the office of Union of India and Director General BSF - [Paras 17-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the Delhi High Court set aside – Writ petition revived for consideration on merits – Respondents granted two months to file counter affidavit.

Criminal Law - Reference to Third Judge - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Scope of jurisdiction - Three siblings were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment - On appeal to the High Court a Division Bench delivered split opinions - Both Judges upheld the conviction of two siblings but differed on the third sibling - The matter was referred to a third Judge under Section 392 CrPC - The referee Judge not only acquitted the sibling in respect of whom there was a difference of opinion but also reversed the unanimous findings of the Division Bench to acquit the other two siblings - Complainant and State filed appeals before the Supreme Court - The Court examined whether a referee Judge is a Judge of the case or a Judge of the appeal - Significant difference in phraseology between Section 429 of the 1898 Code and Section 392 of the 1973 Code noted - Court doubted the precedent in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P. which allowed the third Judge to examine the whole case independently including unanimous findings - Held - The question of whether a third Judge is bound by unanimous conclusions of the Division Bench on certain aspects requires authoritative determination - Matter referred to a larger bench - [Paras 1-42].

Interpretation of Statutes - Grammar and Syntax - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Use of articles - The provision opens with the phrase an appeal and is followed by the appeal - Indefinite article an sets up the class while the definite article the refers back to the specific instance of disagreement - Comparison with Section 429 of the 1898 Code which used the term the case - Court observed that the legislature is prone to use indefinite articles for first mentions and definite articles anaphorically to limit subsequent clauses - Held - Sajjan Singh did not advert to the anaphoric use of the definite article and is thus distinguishable or requires reconsideration - [Paras 29-34].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discipline and Propriety - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 392 - Potential for anomalous results - Supreme Court noted that a mechanical application of the rule in Sajjan Singh could lead to irrational outcomes where a third Judge might reverse a unanimous acquittal recorded by the referring bench - Such an approach could lead to discrimination between litigants filing composite appeals versus separate appeals - Article 14 of the Constitution implicated - Held - Principles of judicial comity and discipline necessitate a deeper study of the jurisdiction of the third Judge - [Paras 35-41].

Decision: Reference made to a larger bench – Questions regarding the scope of Section 392 CrPC referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench.

Writ Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Forum Non Conveniens - Appellant BSF member dismissed from service for contracting second marriage without permission - Dismissal order passed in West Bengal and statutory appeal rejected in Jammu and Kashmir - Appellant filed writ petition in Delhi High Court citing location of BSF Headquarters and Ministry of Home Affairs - Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed petition invoking doctrine of forum non conveniens stating no cause of action arose in Delhi - Supreme Court observed that Article 226(1) permits filing based on situs of office of respondents - Union of India and Director General BSF are necessary parties with offices in Delhi - Held - Delhi High Court has competence to entertain petition as jurisdiction is clearly referable to Article 226(1) - doctrine of forum non conveniens misapplied as it should not deny access to justice when suitor chooses a forum convenient to respondents - impugned order set aside - [Paras 1-40].

Writ Law - Forum Non Conveniens - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Situs of Respondent - Court examined applicability of doctrine of forum non conveniens where jurisdiction is traceable to Article 226(1) - Held - Where a constitutional remedy is pursued and jurisdiction is based on the location of the respondents office the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply - filing a writ of certiorari requires records usually available at respondents head office - a suitor choosing the forum of the respondent should not be non-suited on this ground as it defeats access to justice - [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of Delhi High Court set aside – Writ petition revived for consideration on merits – Respondents granted two months to file counter-affidavit.

Criminal Law - Right to Travel Abroad - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Appeal against High Court judgment permitting Respondent No. 2 to travel to USA for medical treatment pending trial for offences under Sections 120-B and 306 IPC - Respondent No. 2 a US citizen had previously left India in 2017 after suspension of Look Out Circular and returned in 2025 leading to arrest - Magistrate ordered release of passport but required court permission for foreign travel - Sessions Court reversed this directing passport deposit due to prolonged pendency - High Court restored Magistrate order and granted permission to travel to USA citing medical exigencies and previous appearances - Supreme Court found High Court order unsustainable noting that medical facilities in India are comparable to those abroad - Court highlighted the proactive role of the accused in delaying trial through successive petitions and evading process - Held - Impugned order of High Court and Sessions Judge order set aside - Magistrate order dated 07/05/2025 restored - Respondent No. 2 shall not fly out of the country without express permission of the Sessions Court - [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 21 - Personal Liberty vs Societal Interest - Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of Article 21 but is subject to reasonable restrictions - A balance must be struck between individual liberty of the accused and the right of the complainant to a speedy trial along with larger societal interest in effective administration of justice - Accused contended that travel restrictions infringed Article 21 - Court observed that no right is absolute - Held - The High Court was indulgent towards the respondent instead of exercising judicial restraint given that the trial remained at committal stage for nearly ten years - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – High Court and Sessions Court orders set aside – Magistrate order for passport release restored with a restriction on foreign travel without Sessions Court permission – Committal process to be expedited.

Criminal Law - Investigation Delay - Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 226 - Inordinate delay in filing chargesheet - Father of appellants filed a complaint in 2007 alleging forgery of property documents while he was on Haj pilgrimage - Police submitted C-Summary in 2014 which was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class - FSL report in 2017 confirmed forgery of signatures - Original investigation material and case papers were lost in transit from the police station to the Court - High Court ordered re-investigation in 2017 but no chargesheet was filed for nearly a decade thereafter - High Court dismissed the writ petition for directions holding that the complainant should have initiated proceedings before the Magistrate - Supreme Court found that nearly twenty years had passed since the complaint without a meaningful conclusion - Held - Constitutional Courts cannot remain mute spectators to such prolonged investigations - High Court should have exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to intervene - State directed to conclude investigation within six weeks - [Paras 1-18].

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial - Prompt investigation is an important facet of Article 21 - Timely completion of investigation is a pre-constitutional stipulation recognized in procedural codes - While strict timelines may be impractical for investigations they cannot continue endlessly - Accused is entitled to certainty regarding charges after a reasonable point in time - Held - If a large gap exists between the First Information Report and the culminating chargesheet the Court is bound to seek an explanation from the investigating agency and satisfy itself as to the propriety of the explanation - [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law - Missing Case Records - Integrity of Investigation - Loss of evidence - State admitted that original case papers remained untraceable despite disciplinary actions against the officer involved - Held - Incidents where case records are lost during an active investigation strike at the very core of the criminal justice system - Such occurrences render bonafide complaints inactionable and must be taken with utmost seriousness - [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – State of Gujarat and Police Station Bhiloda directed to conclude investigation within six weeks and file an appropriate report with the JMFC – State directed to file an affidavit detailing action taken against the delinquent officer and explaining why the Magistrate was not informed of the inability to reconstruct records.

Civil Law - Mining Royalty - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Enhancement of royalty rate - Respondent was successful bidder in e-auction for iron ore lots in July 2014 - Tender conditions stipulated royalty at 10 percent plus additional deposit for future variance - Central Government amended Second Schedule of MMDR Act on 01-09-2014 increasing royalty to 15 percent - Respondent removed mineral after the amendment - Monitoring Committee deducted 5 percent difference from security deposit - High Court quashed the deduction holding royalty was frozen at time of bid - Supreme Court reversed the decision holding that royalty is a statutory impost linked to removal or dispatch of mineral - Held - Contractual provisions must give way to statutory amendments - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-14].

Civil Law - Statutory Interpretation - Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 - Section 9 - Definition of dispatch - Court examined Section 9 and 9-Judge Bench decision in Mineral Area Development Authority case - Stated that royalty becomes payable upon removal or consumption of mineral from leased area - Interpretation of the word applicable in auction terms means the rate prevalent at time of removal - Held - Liability for enhanced royalty cannot be escaped if movement occurs after statutory amendment - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka quashed – The appellant is entitled to the enhanced royalty of 15 percent.

Civil Law - Minority and Guardianship - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 - Section 8 - Permission for alienation of minor property - Appellant mother acting as the natural guardian of her minor son sought court permission to enter into a development agreement for land inherited by the minor - the District Judge and the High Court rejected the application on the grounds that the necessity for development was not specifically described and the future utilization of the property was not clearly better than the present - Supreme Court observed that the minor held an undivided share in 0.13 acres of undeveloped land which yielded no immediate utility - the development agreement offered a 1/3rd share in a residential flat and Rs 1000000 cash - Court held that a structured arrangement resulting in tangible enforceable assets like a residence and liquid cash for education or health is superior to owning a passive potentially vulnerable interest in undeveloped land - Held - High Court and District Court orders set aside - permission granted subject to conditions - [Paras 1-18].

Civil Law - Doctrine of Parens Patriae - Guardians and Wards Act 1890 - Sections 7 and 17 - Judicial Oversight - the requirement of judicial permission for alienating minor property is an exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction where the State through Courts assumes responsibility for those incapable of safeguarding their own interests - Court must act welfare-centrically and independently rather than merely enforcing parental or proprietary rights - Held - the best interest of the child is not a passive consideration but a vigorous principle requiring foresight and meticulous scrutiny of whether a transaction is for an evident advantage - [Paras 9-14].

Civil Law - Natural Guardian Powers - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 - Section 8 - Statutory Restraints - Section 8(1) grants managerial powers to natural guardians while Section 8(2) imposes a absolute restriction on the alienation of immovable property without prior court approval - Section 8(3) renders unauthorized transactions voidable at the instance of the minor - the requirement for permission is an ex ante protective measure rooted in the welfare of the minor - Held - the Court must reconcile the minor stake in the property with the rights of adult co-owners to engage in economically beneficial transactions - [Paras 7-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Appellant granted permission to realise the Development Agreement - monetary consideration to be kept in a nationalized bank until the minor attains majority - any changes to the agreement require prior court approval - co-owners must seek permission before selling shares prior to the minor reaching majority.

Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-discrimination - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 15 - Appellant married daughter denied compassionate allotment of fair price shop license following mother’s death - Application rejected by Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner on ground that G.O. No. 6 of 2019 and 2016 Order exclude married daughters from the definition of family - High Court dismissed writ petition citing binding precedents in Smt. Kusumlata and Saida Begum but granted certificate under Article 134-A - Supreme Court held that exclusion based solely on marital status lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of providing immediate financial relief to deceased dealer's family - Held - exclusion of married daughters is founded on gender-based stereotypes and is constitutionally unsustainable - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-23].

Writ Law - Compassionate Appointment - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Purpose of dependent quota is to mitigate immediate hardship of deceased dealer's family - State contended that married daughters do not satisfy local residence requirement - Court held that residence is an independent eligibility criterion under Paragraph IV(5) of the G.O. to be determined on facts - Blanket exclusion on speculative assumptions of non-residence is overbroad - Held - dependency is a question of fact which cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone - [Paras 18-22].

Civil Law - Purposive Construction - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 - Clause 2(p) - Interpretation of the words unmarried legally separated and widowed daughters - Literal interpretation produced result incompatible with constitutional guarantees - Principle of purposive construction applied to include married daughters within the expression daughters - Categories mentioned in Clause 2(p) share common characteristic of being united by functional criteria of dependency - Held - the expression daughter must be read to include married daughters provided they establish dependency and satisfy other eligibility conditions including local residence - [Paras 24-27].

Constitutional Law - Judicial Precedent - Overruling of contrary views - Allahabad High Court decisions in Smt. Kusumlata and Saida Begum - These decisions held that married daughters were not entitled to compassionate appointment as dealers - Supreme Court found these views inconsistent with the principle that marital status cannot be a valid ground for denying welfare benefits - Held - decisions in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata do not lay down the correct law and stand overruled - [Para 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of High Court and revenue authorities quashed – Competent authority directed to issue necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within four weeks.

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(3) - Limitation for setting aside award - Starting point for computation - Appellant NHAI sought to challenge an arbitral award regarding land acquisition compensation - Both parties filed applications under Section 33 for correction or additional award - Arbitrator dismissed these applications on 04.07.2022 and NHAI received the order on 15.09.2022 - NHAI filed Section 34 applications on 07.11.2022 - High Court held Section 33 application was not maintainable as it sought substantive modification rather than clerical corrections and refused the benefit of extended limitation under Section 34(3) - Supreme Court analysed the statutory scheme and held that Section 34(3) does not distinguish between Section 33 applications that are ultimately allowed or dismissed - The provision does not restrict the benefit only to maintainable applications - Jurisdiction was formally invoked and proceedings were entertained - Held - Once jurisdiction under Section 33 is formally invoked and entertained the limitation for filing an application under Section 34 commences only from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal - [Paras 1-21].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 33 - Pendency of proceedings - Impact on Section 34 filings - Respondent argued that only a maintainable application under Section 33 could defer the commencement of limitation under Section 34(3) - Court held that the merits of the Section 33 application are not determinative for the purposes of Section 34(3) - Parties cannot be compelled to institute Section 34 proceedings as a matter of abundant caution while Section 33 proceedings are pending - Such a requirement would result in multiplicity of proceedings and procedural uncertainty - Abuse of process through sham or frivolous Section 33 applications can be checked by courts through exemplary and punitive costs - Held - Limitation under Section 34(3) is reckoned from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application even if the application is dismissed or found not to warrant correction - [Paras 13-18].

Civil Law - Arbitration - Precedents - Distinction of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. - High Court relied on the said decision to deny exclusion of time - Supreme Court distinguished the case noting it involved a mere letter seeking review rather than a formal application under Section 33 - In the present case formal applications were filed by both parties within the statutory period and were entertained by the Tribunal - Held - Reliance on Damani Construction Co. was misplaced as the facts were on an entirely different footing - [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge condoning delay restored – Section 34 applications to be decided on merits.