Environmental Protection – Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) – Supreme Court directed a minimum ESZ of 1 kilometer around all protected forests, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries, with existing activities allowed to continue subject to guidelines – Emphasized the importance of a buffer zone to protect wildlife and forest ecosystems – For Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary, subsisting activities allowed within 500 meters, but new activities require adherence to the 1-kilometer ESZ norm [Paras 1-20].

Prohibited and Regulated Activities – Guidelines Adherence – The Court mandated strict compliance with the Guidelines of 9th February 2011 for activities within the ESZ – Prohibited activities include commercial mining, setting up of industries causing pollution, and major hydro-electric projects – Certain activities like tree felling, commercial use of water resources, and establishment of hotels to be regulated [Paras 6-7, 9, 32].

Role of State – Public Trust Doctrine – The Court highlighted the State's role as a trustee of natural resources, emphasizing sustainable development – Reiterated the need for States to protect forests while balancing economic activities – Directed State and Union Territories' authorities to ensure compliance and report on subsisting structures within ESZs [Paras 25, 28-29].

Decision – Applications Allowed/Dismissed – Held – Directions issued for maintaining ESZ and regulating activities within these zones – Rejected claims for resuming mining activities within prohibited areas of the Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary – Allowed implementation of the Guidelines for ESZ across all protected areas – Emphasized the need for compliance with environmental protection laws and sustainable development principles [Paras 34-35, 42].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of CIRP – The appellant sought to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Siva Industries under Section 12A of the IBC after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a settlement plan with a 94.23% majority – NCLT and NCLAT rejected the withdrawal application and directed liquidation – Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of the commercial wisdom of the CoC in such decisions, stating that adjudicating and appellate authorities should not interfere unless the decision is capricious or irrational [Paras 1-28].

Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Paramount Status – The Court reiterated that the commercial decisions of the CoC should not be subject to judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, capricious, or de hors the law – The Court upheld the decision of the CoC to approve the settlement plan and allowed the withdrawal of CIRP, aligning with the principles of minimizing judicial intervention in commercial decisions under the IBC framework [Paras 21-28].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Orders of NCLT and NCLAT set aside – Application for withdrawal of CIRP allowed – Emphasized the importance of adhering to the commercial wisdom of CoC and reducing judicial intervention in insolvency proceedings [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law – Sole Witness Testimony – The conviction of the appellants was based on the sole testimony of Amol Singh (P.W.6) – Supreme Court held that when a witness is "wholly reliable," conviction or acquittal can be based on such testimony – Conversely, if a witness is "wholly unreliable," neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on their testimony – The evidence of Amol Singh (P.W.6) was found to be "wholly unreliable" due to contradictions and the testimonies of other witnesses – The Court emphasized that corroboration is necessary when the testimony falls in the third category of being neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable [Paras 12-22].

Medical Evidence and Motive – The Court noted that medical evidence only established that the death was homicidal and could not corroborate the witness’s claim of having witnessed the incident – It also reiterated that establishing motive alone is insufficient for conviction if the primary evidence is unreliable [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – The convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside – The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 24-25].

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites – Permissible Construction – The construction activities undertaken by the State of Odisha within the prohibited area of Shree Jagannath Temple for providing basic amenities like toilets, cloak rooms, and electricity rooms – Supreme Court upheld these constructions, stating that they do not fall under the definition of "construction" as per Section 2(dc) of the Act and are necessary for public convenience – Court emphasized the harmony between Section 2(dc) and Sections 20C and 20D, permitting essential public facilities even within the prohibited area [Paras 30-43].

Interpretation of Statutes – Legislative Intent – The Court highlighted that legislative intent behind excluding certain constructions from the definition of "construction" under Section 2(dc) was to allow essential services for public convenience – Emphasized that statutory provisions should be read harmoniously to avoid rendering any section otiose or redundant [Paras 41-42].

Public Interest – Development of Heritage Sites – Supreme Court reiterated its previous directions from the Mrinalini Padhi case for providing modern amenities like toilets and cloak rooms in the vicinity of Shree Jagannath Temple – The Court recognized the necessity of such facilities for the welfare of devotees and aligned with the broader goal of developing Puri as a world heritage city [Paras 21-28].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – The construction activities challenged by the appellants were found to be in accordance with the statutory provisions and necessary for public welfare – Appeals dismissed with costs – The Court criticized the misuse of public interest litigations for personal or publicity interests, emphasizing the need to curb such practices [Paras 57-60].

Criminal Law – Multiple Dying Declarations – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on her dying declarations – The Supreme Court noted that while dying declarations hold significant evidentiary value, their reliability must be scrutinized, especially when there are inconsistencies – Court found substantial procedural lapses in recording the dying declarations, including the absence of a doctor’s certification of the deceased's mental fitness – The oral dying declarations made to interested witnesses (father and mediator) were inconsistent with the written declarations and thus unreliable [Paras 11-37].

Legal Principles – Dying Declarations – Emphasized that a dying declaration, if found reliable and voluntarily made, can form the basis of conviction even without corroboration – However, in cases of multiple dying declarations with discrepancies, the court must carefully scrutinize each declaration and rely only on those consistent with other evidence – Reiterated the need for dying declarations to be free from tutoring and made in a fit state of mind [Paras 15-24].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The High Court’s judgment upholding the trial court’s conviction was set aside – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt due to the unreliable and contradictory dying declarations – Directed the appellant’s immediate release unless required in other cases [Paras 38-39].

Tribunals – Territorial Jurisdiction – The appellant challenged the orders of the NGT Principal Bench, New Delhi, which prohibited further construction at Rushikonda Hill and rejected the application for vacating the stay – Supreme Court held that the NGT, being a Tribunal, is subordinate to the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – Court emphasized that in case of conflicting orders between constitutional courts and statutory tribunals, the orders of the constitutional courts would prevail – The continuation of proceedings before the NGT was found inappropriate when the High Court was already in seisin of the matter [Paras 1-13].

Conflict of Jurisdiction – High Court vs. NGT – The Court noted that the High Court had already passed an interim order permitting construction in accordance with the permissions from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the existing master plan – The NGT’s orders were in conflict with the High Court’s directions, leading to an anomalous situation for the authorities – The proceedings before the NGT were quashed and parties directed to approach the High Court for appropriate orders [Paras 3-14].

Environmental Considerations – Balance Between Development and Environment – While acknowledging the need for economic development, the Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the environment for future generations – Directed the High Court to consider the report of the Experts Committee constituted by the NGT and decide accordingly [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Proceedings before the NGT quashed – Parties directed to seek appropriate orders from the High Court – Interim construction permitted only on previously constructed and demolished areas until the High Court’s further decision – No opinion on merits expressed by the Supreme Court, leaving all issues to be raised before the High Court [Paras 14-21].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Financial Debt – The Supreme Court held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate constitutes a "financial debt" under Section 5(8) of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of a Recovery Certificate is a "financial creditor" as per Section 5(7) of the IBC, and is entitled to initiate CIRP if the application is filed within three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate [Paras 1-27].

Limitation Period – Fresh Cause of Action – The Court observed that the issuance of a Recovery Certificate gives rise to a fresh cause of action, allowing the financial creditor to initiate CIRP within three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate, rejecting the argument that the application was time-barred [Paras 28-39].

Legal Interpretation – Inclusive Definitions – Emphasized that the inclusive nature of definitions under the IBC (e.g., "financial debt") must be construed broadly to encompass liabilities arising from Recovery Certificates, supporting the broader objective of the IBC to maximize recovery for creditors while preserving the debtor as a going concern [Paras 40-55].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and order of the learned NCLAT are set aside – The application under Section 7 of the IBC filed by the appellant within three years from the issuance of the Recovery Certificate is deemed within the limitation period and is thereby admitted.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the conviction based solely on the "Last seen together" theory and the extra judicial confession of a co-accused was insufficient. The Court emphasized that the time gap between the accused last being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased's body was too large to conclusively link the appellant to the crime [Paras 1-19]. Circumstantial Evidence – Homicidal Death – The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths were homicidal, given that the postmortem report suggested the possibility of suicide. Without establishing homicidal death, the conviction under Section 302 IPC could not be sustained [Paras 8-10]. Last Seen Together Theory – Insufficient for Conviction – The Court reiterated that the "Last seen together" theory alone cannot be the basis for conviction unless the time gap is minimal and other corroborative evidence is present. In this case, the significant time gap weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 13-18]. Extra Judicial Confession – Weak Evidence – The Court held that extra judicial confessions are inherently weak and must be corroborated by other strong evidence to sustain a conviction. In this case, the extra judicial confession did not meet this standard [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.

Securities Law – Manipulative Trading – The Supreme Court upheld the SEBI order barring the appellant from proprietary trading for four years. The Court found that the appellant engaged in manipulative self-trades to inflate share prices, causing detriment to investors. The penalty was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offense [Paras 1-15].

Penalty and Proportionality – The Court noted that penalties under SEBI regulations aim to preserve market integrity and prevent abuse. The imposition of a trading ban, despite being harsh, was not disproportionate considering the appellant's manipulative actions [Paras 10-14].

Investor Protection – Emphasized the importance of protecting investors' wealth and maintaining confidence in the securities market. The Court highlighted that manipulative trading practices harm market integrity and investor trust [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The SEBI order restraining the appellant from proprietary trading for four years is upheld.