Environmental Law – Illegal Sand Mining – Protected Wildlife Sanctuary – Suo Motu Cognizance – Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance on 13.03.2026 of rampant illegal sand mining within the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary causing severe degradation of critical wildlife habitats including those of the endangered Gharials – Notices issued to States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change – On emergent application disclosing fresh incidents of violence and structural threat to a National Highway bridge, Court issues comprehensive interim directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 1, 2, 17, 18].

Illegal Sand Mining – Murder of Forest Guards – State Accountability – Forest guard Shri Harikesh Gurjar was deliberately run over and killed by a tractor-trolley while conducting anti-illegal mining operations near Morena, Madhya Pradesh on 08.04.2026 – Forest guard Shri Jitendra Singh Shekhawat, posted at Dholpur, Rajasthan, was similarly run over on 08.01.2026 and succumbed to injuries on 09.01.2026 – Incidents disclose a pattern of organised violent criminal activity by illegal mining operators – State of Madhya Pradesh disclosed before the National Green Tribunal that forest officials lacked adequate weaponry to deal with the armed sand mafia – Held: State cannot plead helplessness or take shelter under its own inadequacies; failure to equip enforcement personnel strikes at the root of governance and rule of law [Paras 4, 5, 12, 13].

Illegal Mining – Threat to Public Infrastructure – Structural Integrity of Bridge – Large-scale and systematic illegal sand mining carried out in close proximity to a National Highway-44 bridge over the Chambal river connecting Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan – Excavation of deep pits ranging from 30 to 50 feet around bridge pillars and beneath supporting structures, creating large water-filled cavities – Imminent risk of structural failure of a bridge carrying thousands of vehicles daily – Court observes prima facie administrative failure and lackadaisical approach warranting immediate intervention [Paras 6, 10].

Environmental Governance – Systemic Institutional Failure – State Accountability – National Green Tribunal had been grappling with the issue since 2022 without significant success – Material on record discloses a disturbing pattern of inaction and administrative indifference amounting to possible tacit connivance with illegal mining operators – Circumstances reflect not isolated lapses but systemic and institutional failure to discharge constitutional and statutory obligations – Held: Such apathy in the face of escalating environmental degradation and threats to human life is wholly inacceptable; Court cannot remain a silent spectator and must assume a proactive role [Paras 10, 11, 19].

Interim Directions – Article 142 – Surveillance and Enforcement Mechanism – Court issues eleven comprehensive directions including: installation of high-resolution Wi-Fi enabled CCTV cameras on elevated masts at routes used for illegal mining and vulnerable river stretches; live feed placed under control of SP/SSP and Divisional Forest Officer; mandatory GPS tracking devices in all vehicles and machinery used in mining in Districts Morena and Dholpur on pilot basis; dedicated control rooms for centralised monitoring; immediate seizure of vehicles involved in illegal mining and prosecution of all persons involved; environmental compensation proceedings under the Polluter Pays principle; constitution of dedicated joint patrol teams equipped with modern arms, surveillance equipment and protective gear; formulation of a comprehensive inter-State Standard Operating Procedure; and personal accountability of derelict officers including contempt proceedings – States warned that failure to take effective steps may result in deployment of paramilitary forces, a complete ban on sand mining, and imposition of heavy penalties [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Agricultural Subsidy – Cold Storage – Withdrawal of Subsidy – Appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the APMC Act 1963, applied for subsidy under the NHB/NABARD Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction of a cold storage facility – 50% advance subsidy of Rs. 25 lakhs was released – Joint Monitoring Visit on 19.11.2008 found the facility at minimum capacity utilisation – Remaining subsidy was kept pending – Cold storage unit caught fire on 03.05.2011 due to short circuit – NABARD thereafter withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already paid – Single Judge set aside the withdrawal and directed release of remaining subsidy – Division Bench reversed and restored the authority's decision – Supreme Court sets aside the Division Bench and restores the Single Judge's order – Appeal allowed [Paras 2, 5, 6, 11].

Subsidy Scheme – Compliance – Efforts by Appellant – Joint Monitoring Visit Report itself recorded that the unit was "completed and commissioned" and recommended consideration for final subsidy as per NHB/NABARD guidelines – Appellant, through its bank GSCARDB, made repeated written requests between June 2009 and April 2011 seeking re-inspection and release of final subsidy – Authorities failed to conduct the requested inspections or release the amount despite numerous communications – Fire occurred while the matter stood at the stage of exchange of letters – Held: Appellant had discharged its obligation of making efforts under the Scheme; withdrawal of subsidy and recovery of amount already paid were unjustified – Contention of NHB that the appellant miserably failed to make efforts is contradicted by the Monitoring Committee's own report [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC – Distinction – Appellants filed a second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) challenging the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 as illegal and void, obtained by fraud, coercion and undue influence, and seeking permanent injunction against alienation of suit properties — Respondents-defendants sought rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the cause of action was identical to that of the first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) — Trial Court dismissed the rejection application and granted interim injunction — High Court reversed, holding both suits arose from the same cause of action and that plaintiffs were aware of the Power of Attorney — Held by Supreme Court: Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar the filing of a suit but only curtails the right to sue for claims relinquished or reliefs omitted in an earlier suit; such a plea cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without evidence being led — High Court's approach of analysing averments of the second suit as evidence was improper [Paras 5.17–5.21, 7–8].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Nature and Applicability – Cause of Action – Order II Rule 2 CPC is founded on the principle that a defendant shall not be vexed twice for the same cause of action — The bar under Order II Rule 2(2) and (3) operates only where the subsequent suit is in respect of the same cause of action as the earlier suit and the plaintiff had omitted to claim reliefs or relinquished claims without leave of court — To invoke the bar, the defendant must establish by evidence: (i) identity of cause of action in both suits; (ii) entitlement to more than one relief on such cause of action; and (iii) omission to claim such relief without leave of court — The technical bar cannot be presumed on inferential reasoning alone — The cause of action means every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support his right to judgment, and if evidence required to support the claims in the two suits is different, the causes of action are also different [Paras 5.4, 5.7, 5.9–5.12].

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar by Law – Meaning – Distinction from Order II Rule 2 – Order VII Rule 11(d) requires that the suit must appear from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law — The bar must be express or implied and discernible on a meaningful reading of the plaint and annexed documents — Under Order II Rule 2, the right to sue for certain claims is taken away but the filing of the suit as such is not barred by law — Application of Order II Rule 2 to a case may result in rejection of certain reliefs or even dismissal of the suit after evidence, but does not result in rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) — A plea under Order II Rule 2 cannot be adjudicated at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 without recording evidence [Paras 5.13, 5.17–5.21, 7].

Cause of Action – Two Suits – First Suit vs. Second Suit – The first suit (OS No. 4722/2012) was filed by the parents seeking permanent injunction against the son from interfering with possession of the Chennai property and bank account — The second suit (OS No. 2320/2013) was filed after the death of M. Sokkalingam by his widow and daughters seeking declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 was illegal and void along with consequential injunction against alienation of the Ooty (Nilgiris) and Pudukottai properties — The causes of action, properties involved, parties, and reliefs claimed in the two suits were distinct — The cause of action for the second suit arose upon the death of M. Sokkalingam on 13.03.2013 — High Court erred in holding that the cause of action was one and the same [Paras 1.2–1.10, 8–8.1].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the Madras High Court set aside – Order of the Trial Court in OS No. 2320/2013 restored along with the plaint – All observations confined to disposal of the appeal and not to bear on the merits of the suit – Parties to bear respective costs [Para 9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Liability of Directors – Liquidation Under IBC – Effect on Cheque Dishonour Proceedings – Petitioners, as directors and authorised signatories of the accused company, issued a post-dated cheque towards repayment of a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- – Cheque was dishonoured on 14.12.2018 – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed on 18.02.2019 – Subsequent liquidation order was passed against the company on 08.04.2019 – Trial Court allowed the application for discharge holding that petitioners, having lost their directorial positions post-liquidation, could not be held liable – High Court set aside the discharge order, holding that liability under Section 138 NI Act subsists despite initiation of insolvency and liquidation proceedings under the IBC – Held: No ground for interference with the High Court's order; SLP dismissed – All other contentions on both sides left open to be advanced before the Trial Court.

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed — impugned order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench dated 01.10.2025 upheld — all other contentions left open before the Trial Court — pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum – Enhancement – Section 144 BNSS – Appellant-wife married on 07.05.2023, forced to leave matrimonial home within a year due to neglect and harassment, with no independent source of income – Family Court awarded ₹8,000/- per month – High Court enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month – Supreme Court on further appeal found quantum inadequate in light of respondent's gross monthly income of ₹1,15,670/- as Manager, Canara Bank – Held: Maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month is just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the case – Loan repayments towards asset creation cannot dilute the husband's primary obligation of maintenance [Paras 2–17].

Maintenance – Deductions from Salary – Loan Repayments – Effect – Courts below accorded considerable weight to deductions in the respondent's salary on account of loan repayments and other financial commitments – Held: Repayments of loans resulting in creation or acquisition of assets partake the character of capital investment and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure – Such voluntary financial commitments cannot be accorded precedence over the statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance – Primary obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements [Paras 13, 15–16].

Maintenance – Object and Principles – Dignified Sustenance – Reiterating the settled position, the Court held that maintenance proceedings are intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance – Maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage – Determination must be based on a balanced assessment of the earning capacity of the husband and the reasonable needs of the wife [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand modified – Maintenance enhanced to ₹25,000/- per month – Arrears to be cleared within three months – Amount payable on or before the 7th day of each calendar month.

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Instigation and Mens Rea - Appellant challenged the order framing charges for abetting the suicide of Komal Sahu - Prosecution case based on alleged illicit relationship between appellant and deceased wife Revati Bai - Deceased was an alcoholic who committed suicide by hanging - No suicide note was left - Statements of family members suggested the wife insulted the deceased in front of the appellant - High Court dismissed the revision holding that prima facie ingredients were satisfied - Supreme Court perused the charge sheet and noted the appellant and deceased consumed liquor together two days before the suicide - Held - To sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC there must be a positive act of instigation or incitement revealing a clear mens rea to lead the victim to suicide - Allegations of an affair were hearsay and lacked proximity to the act - Requirements of Section 107 IPC not satisfied as no direct or indirect act of the appellant left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide - Proceedings qua the appellant quashed - [Paras 1-15].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Inherent Jurisdiction - Principles laid down in R.P. Kapur vs State of Punjab and State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal - High Court can quash proceedings where allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute the offence - Prosecution under Section 306 IPC requires material of a definite nature rather than imaginary or inferential - Held - Courts must be extremely careful as the deceased is not available for cross-examination - In absence of specific allegations of instigation it would be hazardous to ask the accused to face trial - High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings despite lack of material - [Paras 8-14].

Evidence Law - Instigation - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 107 - Interpretation of Instigation - Reliance on Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh - Instigation means to goad-urge forward-provoke-incite or encourage to do an act - Not necessary that actual words be used but reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out - A word uttered in fit of anger without intending consequences is not instigation - Held - Mere addiction of deceased to liquor and general allegations of illicit relationship do not amount to a continued course of conduct creating circumstances for suicide - Proximity between the meeting of the appellant and the suicide was not established - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Order dated 08.04.2025 in CRR No. 450 of 2025 set aside – Charge framed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2024 stands quashed – Appellant discharged – Trial against accused No. 2 to proceed uninfluenced by observations.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Offence of Giving Dowry – Section 7(3) – Statutory Immunity – FIR against Wife and Family – Maintainability – Petitioner-husband sought registration of a separate FIR against his wife and her family members on the ground that their statements acknowledging payment of dowry constituted the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act — Application under Section 156(3) CrPC dismissed by Magistrate — Revision dismissed by Sessions Court — High Court upheld the concurrent orders — Held: Section 7(3) of the DP Act, inserted by Act 43 of 1986 with effect from 19.11.1986, expressly provides that a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to prosecution under the Act — Wife and her family members, being persons aggrieved, are fully protected by this statutory shield — Their complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements cannot form the substratum for launching prosecution against them for 'giving' dowry — Petition dismissed [Paras 9, 13, 20–21].

Section 7(3) of the DP Act – Legislative History – Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, 1982 – The Committee had recommended that givers of dowry should not be equated with takers, as parents are compelled to give dowry by societal and customary norms and do not do so out of free will — Further, penalising both giver and taker would deter complainants from coming forward — Pursuant to these recommendations, Act 43 of 1986 inserted Section 7(3) to protect the aggrieved persons from prosecution — 'Person aggrieved' under Section 7(3) includes not only the bride but also her parents and other relatives [Paras 12–13, 17].

Second FIR – Registration – Principles – A second FIR can be registered where it presents a rival version or counter-claim, where the ambit of the two FIRs is different, where investigation reveals the earlier FIR to be part of a larger conspiracy, or where the incident is separate — However, where the sole foundation for the second FIR is the complaint and Section 161 CrPC statements of the wife and her family members, without any independent evidence of 'giving' of dowry, registration of such FIR is not permissible — Had independent evidence been offered, the protection under Section 7(3) of the DP Act would not have been available [Paras 19–20].

Neera Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Observations directing registration of FIR for 'giving' dowry whenever wife alleges dowry was given — Held: Observations made in ignorance of Section 7(3) of the DP Act — Not binding precedent — Overruled in substance — Decision in Pooja Saxena vs. State and Another (Delhi HC), confirmed by Supreme Court on dismissal of SLP, represents correct position of law [Paras 14–16, 18].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed — No grounds to interfere with concurrent orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court — Pending applications stand dismissed [Paras 21–22].

Preventive Detention – COFEPOSA Act – Gold Smuggling – Dismissal of SLPs – Detenus alleged to have facilitated disposal of foreign-marked gold bars on multiple occasions – Detention Orders passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act on 22.04.2025 – Division Bench of Karnataka High Court upheld the Detention Orders – Supreme Court finds adequate procedural compliance by detaining authority in passing the Detention Orders – Held: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed [Paras 1, 35-36].

Legal Assistance Before Advisory Board – Section 8(e) of COFEPOSA Act – Article 22(3)(b) of Constitution – Detenu has no right to be represented by legal practitioner before Advisory Board as a matter of right – Right to legal assistance arises only when Detaining Authority itself participates through a legal practitioner or legal adviser before the Advisory Board – Officers merely producing records and assisting the Advisory Board do not trigger this right – Request of detenu for legal assistance before Advisory Board rightly rejected – Held: Rejection of legal assistance does not vitiate the detention proceedings [Paras 19, 21].

Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Pen Drive Containing CCTV Footage – Substantial Compliance – Contents of pen drive displayed to detenus on a laptop inside prison before making representations – Pen drive offered to representatives of detenus – Prison rules do not permit electronic gadgets to detenues – Detenus did not renew request for further display after initial viewing – Held: Non-supply of pen drive does not amount to non-furnishing of relied upon documents; contention rejected as afterthought – Distinguished: Smitha Gireesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3697 [Paras 26, 28-29].

Representations – Disposal by Competent Authority – Communication through Same Official – Representations of detenu Smt. Harshavardhini Ranya dated 05.05.2025 and 08.05.2025 duly considered by Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA and Director General, CEIB respectively – Communications of rejection signed by Director, COFEPOSA held to be a mere ministerial act of conveying the decision of the competent authority – Held: Communication of rejection by same officer does not render the disposal incompetent or illegal [Paras 30-31].

Subjective Satisfaction – Live and Proximate Link – Detenu in Custody – Detention Order clearly records imminent possibility of release on bail – Prior occurrences of disposal of foreign-marked gold bars established with adequate particulars in grounds of detention – Live and proximate link between last transaction on 14.02.2025 and the incident on 03.03.2025 duly established qua detenu Shri Sahil Sarkariya Jain – Held: Subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority cannot be faulted [Paras 32, 34].

Habeas Corpus – Fresh Grounds – Strict Pleadings Not Applicable – Fresh grounds can be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition challenging detention order – However, such fresh grounds must still withstand factual scrutiny – Held: Even fresh grounds raised before the Supreme Court do not benefit the petitioners in light of substantial compliance by the authorities [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Both Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Pending applications disposed of – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance of Supreme Court Directions – Electoral Reforms – Asset Disclosure by Legislators – Petitioner alleged contempt on the ground that directions issued in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015, requiring a permanent mechanism to monitor asset growth of MPs/MLAs/MLCs exceeding 100% and amendment of Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, had not been implemented – Union submitted that Lok Sabha Secretariat reiterated legal and practical constraints in creating a monitoring committee, stating it would conflict with parliamentary practices and the jurisdiction of the Lokpal under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – A joint framework between the Election Commission and CBDT for verification of asset disclosures was noted to already exist – Held: No contempt made out – Petition disposed of [Paras 6–8].

Electoral Disqualification – Non-Disclosure of Assets – Undue Influence – Directions in WP (C) No. 784 of 2015 recalled: non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates constitutes corrupt practice amounting to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Form 26 directed to be amended to include information relating to statutory disqualifications under Sections 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, 10 and 10-A of the RP Act and contracts with appropriate government [Para 3].

Decision: Contempt Petition disposed of – No contempt found – Union's explanation regarding institutional constraints and existing framework accepted.