Labour Law – Sick Industry – Workmen's Dues – Decades of Non-Payment – Exercise of Power under Article 142 – JUL declared sick under SICA on 17.09.1987 – BIFR sanctioned rehabilitation scheme proposed by GDCL in 1992 – Scheme failed of implementation – BIFR recommended winding up on 24.11.2000 – SICA repealed in 2016 and IBC enacted – JUL did not file application before NCLT within the prescribed period, rendering the BIFR winding-up recommendation final subject to High Court approval – Workmen of cement plant at Sawai Madhopur and Kanpur Jute Mill remained unpaid for over three decades – Dues of approximately ₹115 crores (Rajasthan unit) and ₹48 crores (Kanpur unit) remained outstanding – Court exercised power under Article 142 to give the matter a quietus and ensure payment of dues in a time-bound manner – Held: Power under Article 142 is available where complete justice cannot otherwise be done; revival of the unit being impossible as mining area falls in notified forest area, the only just course is to ensure workmen are paid from the assets of JUL/JAIL [Paras 165–167, 170–176].

Corporate Law – Sick Company – Unauthorised Dealings by Rehabilitation Applicant – GDCL had at best the status of a custodian/trustee under the 1992 rehabilitation scheme – After BIFR recommended winding up on 24.11.2000 and the scheme lost significance, GDCL had no authority to deal with the properties of JUL or its subsidiary JAIL – Despite this, GDCL changed the shareholding pattern of JAIL (a subsidiary of JUL) from 99.9% to 33% by issuing fresh shares to its sister concerns without permission of BIFR or this Court – GDCL also transferred the entire shareholding of JUL to its associate companies in 2017–18, which was reversed only after objection – Held: Any allotment of new shares by GDCL to its group companies declared illegal – Directed accordingly [Paras 122–138, 177].

Asset Management – Sale of Company Assets Without Court Permission – GDCL sold properties of JUL and JAIL without permission of this Court or through any lawful committee – Sales included Kanpur Jute Unit for ₹51 crores (June 2024), agricultural land of JAIL for ₹2.84 crores (September 2022), and another property for ₹21 crores (April 2021), all at undervalued consideration – Court declined to set aside sales of Kanpur Jute Mill and two JAIL properties as buyers' rights require a hearing in compliance with natural justice – However, sale of scrap of Sawai Madhopur Unit was set aside as sale consideration remained with GDCL – GDCL directed to refund sale consideration with interest at 8% p.a. within two months – Held: GDCL was at most a custodian; all contributions made by GDCL to creditors or workmen were from the very assets of JUL over which it had no right [Paras 139–145, 190–195, 196.4–196.6].

Legitimate Expectation – Workmen – Long Pendency – No enforceable legitimate expectation could be said to have accrued to GDCL in continuation of the rehabilitation scheme after the BIFR order of winding up and the abatement of the appeal by repeal of SICA – The workmen, on the other hand, have a legitimate and enforceable claim to their dues which have remained unpaid for over three decades – Held: Legitimate expectation doctrine operates under Article 14; it is not an absolute right and cannot be stretched to defeat the rights of long-suffering workmen [Paras 168–169].

Winding Up – Recommendation of BIFR – Status After Repeal of SICA – Company Petition No.21 of 2001 pending before Rajasthan High Court on BIFR's recommendation for winding up of JUL – After repeal of SICA and enactment of IBC, JUL did not file any application before NCLT within the permitted period of 180 days – BIFR's winding up recommendation thus attained finality subject to High Court approval – However, in view of the fact that as of today all debts of JUL stand cleared, the recommendation for winding up is rendered infructuous – Held: Company Petition No.21 of 2001 stands disposed of as infructuous [Paras 184–189, 196.7].

Court Administrator – Appointment – For the purpose of compliance with directions for payment of workmen's dues, verification of claims, and valuation of assets, Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, appointed as Administrator with power to engage staff, call for records, and avail services of experts – Administrator to be paid monthly honorarium of ₹2 lakhs with ₹2 lakhs per month for staff and expenses – Amount of ₹50 lakhs to be placed at the Administrator's disposal from the ₹1 crore to be retained in escrow – Entire dues of workmen to be cleared by 31.08.2026 [Paras 196, 198–199].

Decision: Writ Petition (Civil) No.392 of 2015 disposed of with the following directions: (i) verification of dues of workmen and clearance thereof within four months, by 31.08.2026; (ii) EPFO to be looped in for calculation of provident fund dues; (iii) inventory of houses/flats in possession of workers to be prepared with conditions for eventual vacation; (iv) inventory and valuation of assets of JUL and JAIL to be prepared; (v) sale of scrap of Sawai Madhopur Unit set aside; GDCL to refund sale consideration with 8% p.a. interest within 2 months; (vi) amounts deposited by GDCL with this Court refunded to it after sale of properties; (vii) Company Petition No.21 of 2001 disposed of as infructuous; (viii) applications by M/s Frost Realty LLP and M/s Dickey Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. rejected; (ix) ₹25 crores deposited by M/s Frost Realty LLP refunded with interest; (x) new share allotments by GDCL declared illegal; (xi) Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava appointed as Court Administrator – Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.61491 of 2025 disposed of – No further orders required.

Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Hostile Complainant – Creditworthy Portion of Deposition – Accused was Taluk Supply Officer (TSO) who repeatedly refused to countersign the 'Abstract' of ration card register maintained by the complainant (Authorised Ration Dealer) and demanded Rs.500/- as bribe – Trap was laid; marked note recovered from shirt pocket of the accused; left hand of accused tested positive – Trial court convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with concurrent sentences of two years and fine – High Court acquitted, finding that PW1 turned hostile and demand was not established, the independent witness who accompanied complainant into the cabin was not examined, and there was no proof of any offer by the bribe-giver – Held: High Court erred – The complaint made before the Vigilance Officer, the statements therein affirmed by PW1 before independent witnesses, and the corroboration by PW2 (independent witness) and PW17 (trap officer) are sufficient to establish the demand – Acceptance of the marked note is established and admitted; the false explanation offered by the accused is a further compelling circumstance of guilt – Order of trial court restored [Paras 9–18].

Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Hostile Witness – Creditworthy Evidence Not to be Discarded in Toto – PW1 prevaricated in cross-examination by affirming every suggestion of the defence, including denial of demand – Held: Evidence of a hostile witness cannot as a matter of law be washed off the record – Court must scrutinise the deposition and act upon the creditworthy portion – PW1 affirmed before Court that the complaint (Ext.P1) recording the demand was read over and confirmed as truthful by him before the independent witnesses – This portion of his evidence, fully corroborated by PW2 and PW17, establishes the demand despite his prevarication – The evasive and inconsistent answers do not efface the creditworthy admissions already made – Ratio of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (as approved in Neeraj Dutta) followed [Paras 12–15, 17].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 7 – Ingredients – Demand Sine Qua Non – Per Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Constitution Bench), proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) – An offence under Section 7 is also made out if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without a prior demand, provided acceptance is proved, enabling the presumption under Section 20 – In the present case, demand is established from the creditworthy portion of PW1's evidence corroborated by PW2 and PW17; the question of offer therefore does not arise – Distinction drawn from Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh where the complainant had completely disowned the complaint, which is not the position here [Paras 9–11].

Prevention of Corruption – False Explanation – Admission of Acceptance – Compelling Circumstance of Guilt – Accused admitted receipt of the marked Rs.500/- note but offered inconsistent explanations: in cross-examination of PW1 the suggestion was that the amount was a loan repayment through one Swayam Prakash (PW8); under Section 313 the accused stated PW1 had entrusted the money for handing over to Swayam Prakash – PW8 (Swayam Prakash) turned hostile and stated he had borrowed money from PW1, not the other way around – Held: An accused is entitled to take inconsistent stances in defence, however where the suggestion and explanation are contrary and the subject of the alleged loan is spoken otherwise, the false explanation is a compelling circumstance pointing to guilt [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of acquittal passed by the High Court set aside – Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court restored – Sentence of two years imprisonment concurrent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence under each provision upheld as the minimum statutory sentence – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – NRI plot purchasers alleged that accused persons created forged GPAs, executed fraudulent sale deeds and confirmation deeds in respect of Survey No. 12, Doddagubbi Village, Bengaluru, thereby depriving them of their lawfully owned plots through a premeditated conspiracy – Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court quashed proceedings holding dispute to be civil in nature and that registered sale deeds must first be cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 before criminal proceedings could be sustained – Held: High Court transgressed well-settled boundaries governing exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC – Impugned judgment set aside – FIRs and proceedings revived and restored [Paras 4, 23–25, 51–58].

Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate's Order Directing Investigation – Scope and Standard – At the stage of directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate is required only to prima facie satisfy itself that the complaint discloses cognizable offences warranting investigation – The Magistrate is not expected to exhaustively evaluate evidence or adjudicate the merits of allegations – High Court's interference with such an order at the threshold, particularly when allegations of fraud, forgery and criminal conspiracy affecting a large group of NRI purchasers were made, was wholly unjustified [Para 52].

Section 482 CrPC – Mini-Trial Impermissible at Threshold Stage – High Court examined defence documents including sale deeds executed in favour of accused-respondents and treated them as determinative of the dispute – Such consideration of defence material involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact falling within the domain of investigation and trial – Any weighing of defence material at the threshold stage amounts to conducting a mini-trial and is wholly impermissible – Criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled except where the complaint ex facie discloses no cognizable offence or continuation would be an abuse of process [Paras 53–55].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Parallel Proceedings Permissible – Mere existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence – Initiation of civil proceedings for cancellation of sale deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is not a sine qua non for launching criminal prosecution – Civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously even where allegations are identical [Para 56].

Parity of Reasoning – Coordinate Judgment Already Set Aside – High Court had passed a substantially identical judgment on 25th October, 2016 quashing proceedings against developer-Joseph Chacko on the same line of reasoning – That judgment was set aside by this Court on 28th November, 2024 – The impugned judgment in the present appeals rests on the same foundational premise – Existence of rival narratives attributing culpability to different sets of accused in respect of the same transactions underscores necessity of proper investigation rather than furnishing a ground to discard complaints at the threshold [Paras 47–51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Common impugned judgment and order dated 28th September, 2016 of the High Court of Karnataka set aside – FIRs and proceedings arising therefrom revived and restored to the file of the concerned Police Station and/or Magistrate for being proceeded in accordance with law – All contentions of parties left open – Observations confined to present appeals and not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits [Paras 57–61].

Bail – Conditions – Power of Court – Scope and Limits – Section 483 BNSS – Appellants arrested in connection with FIR No. 11/2025 for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 IPC – Remained in custody for 83 days during investigation – Sessions Court rejected bail – High Court granted bail but imposed condition directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy to sell appellants' properties and distribute sale proceeds to complainant and similarly placed persons – Held: Jurisdiction of court while considering bail is confined to assessing whether accused should be released pending investigation or trial and to impose conditions ensuring fair investigation or trial – Bail jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating civil rights or directing recovery of alleged dues – Impugned condition directing sale of property set aside [Paras 6, 9, 11].

Bail Conditions – Nexus with Object of Bail – Conditions must be regulatory, not punitive or determinative – Ordering sale of property as a bail condition is in the nature of final civil relief affecting property rights – Such conditions have no nexus with the object of granting bail – Bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings – Neither BNSS 2023 nor CrPC 1973 enables a court at the stage of bail or investigation to direct sale of immovable property of accused for settlement of alleged claims [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10].

Bail – Undertaking by Counsel – Scope – Learned counsel for appellants had volunteered an undertaking before the High Court to sell the properties and deposit the amount, which prompted the High Court to direct the Magistrate to sell the properties – Held: Such undertaking by counsel, though recorded, does not empower the court to direct the Magistrate to effect the sale and pay proceeds to victims – This was not warranted – However, condition of depositing title deeds of the properties to secure presence of accused remains intact – Appellants at liberty to take appropriate steps to sell properties and pay amounts to complainant [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned condition directing the jurisdictional Magistrate to sell properties of appellants and distribute proceeds set aside – Condition of depositing title deeds to secure presence of accused left undisturbed [Para 11].

Agricultural Income Tax – Amalgamation – Set-off of Accumulated Losses – Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 – Appellant-amalgamated company claimed set-off of accumulated losses of the amalgamating company (Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd.) against its own profits, relying on Clause 14.2 of the scheme of amalgamation and Section 54 of the Kerala Act – High Court upheld denial of set-off at all levels – Held: The Kerala Act contains no provision analogous to Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which expressly deems accumulated losses of an amalgamating company to be losses of the amalgamated company – In the absence of such a provision, set-off cannot be claimed – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 14–16].

Section 12 – Kerala Act – Carry Forward of Losses – Personal to the Assessee – Section 12 of the Kerala Act permits carry forward of losses for a maximum period of eight years for set-off against income of subsequent years – Such benefit is personal to the assessee who suffered the losses – As the amalgamating company has ceased to exist upon dissolution without winding up, it is no longer an assessee capable of claiming set-off – The amalgamated company, not having itself suffered those losses, cannot claim the benefit – Moreover, the losses pertained to a period beyond eight years, independently disentitling the claim [Paras 6.1–6.4, 9, 15].

Scheme of Amalgamation – Binding Effect – Clause 14.2 – Distinction from Dalmia Power Ltd. – Appellant's reliance on Clause 14.2 of the scheme of amalgamation and the judgment in Dalmia Power Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax rejected – In Dalmia Power Ltd., the Income Tax Department received notice and failed to raise objections within the stipulated time, rendering all terms of the scheme binding – In the present case, no statutory requirement existed to issue notice to the State of Kerala under the Companies Act, 1956, and no such notice was issued – The State of Kerala was not a party to amalgamation proceedings and thus cannot be bound by terms of the scheme – Held: The ratio of Dalmia Power Ltd. is inapplicable and distinguishable on facts [Paras 11–13].

Section 54 – Kerala Act – Succession to Business – Scope – Section 54 of the Kerala Act deals with succession to business and provides that a successor can be called upon to pay tax dues of the predecessor – The proviso enables recovery of existing tax demands from the successor but does not extend any benefit of set-off of losses suffered by the predecessor to the successor – Section 54 cannot be read to confer upon the amalgamated company the right to set off losses of the amalgamating company [Paras 6.2, 9.1].

Decision: All five civil appeals dismissed – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15–17].

Family Law – Mediated Settlement Agreement – Resilement – DV Proceedings Quashed – Parties married in 2000 entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2024 through mediation, agreeing to dissolve marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant-Husband performed his obligations including payment of ₹75,00,000/-, ₹14,00,000/- for car, and return of jewellery – First Motion allowed by Family Court on 14.08.2024 – Respondent-Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion and filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 – Held: DV proceedings constitute abuse of process, liable to be quashed – Impugned interim order set aside [Paras 3–9, 37–41, 55(i)].

Mediated Settlement Agreement – Binding Nature – Resilement – A party cannot be permitted to resile from a mediated settlement agreement duly authenticated by a mediator and ratified by the Court, without demonstrating that the settlement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or that the opposite party failed to comply with conditions stipulated therein – Resilement from such agreements strikes at the foundational basis of the entire mediation process – Resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs – Settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint and disputes – Held: Respondent-Wife's conduct in accepting benefits under the Settlement Agreement and thereafter withdrawing consent amounts to abuse of process [Paras 29–35].

DV Act – Section 12 – Complaint Without Specific Allegations – Quashing Justified – A careful perusal of the DV complaint revealed absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence by the Appellant-Husband or his mother – Filing of DV complaint immediately after Contempt Petition was issued against Respondent-Wife, after eight months of the Second Motion deadline, and for the first time in 23 years of marriage, pointed to it being a premeditated afterthought designed to sustain litigation after resilement from the Settlement Agreement – Criminal prosecution without specific averments of violence cannot be permitted and is liable to be quashed [Paras 37–41].

Article 142(1) – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce Granted – Parties living separately since 2022-23 – Both children of the parties are majors – Multiple rounds of litigation initiated by both parties – Settlement Agreement entered through court-directed mediation rendered unworkable by Respondent-Wife's conduct – No possibility of reconciliation – Held: Marriage has irretrievably broken down; present is a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) – Decree of divorce granted subject to compliance with specified terms including payment of remaining alimony of ₹70,22,871/-, handover of PPF passbook, and execution of relinquishment deeds [Paras 42–55].

Conditions for Exercise of Power Under Article 142(1) – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is to be determined factually by weighing several factors including period of cohabitation, nature of allegations, number of attempts at settlement, economic and social status of parties, age and dependency of children, and provision for fair alimony – Power is discretionary and not a matter of right, to be exercised only when the Court is fully convinced that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation – Court is not required to adjudicate on fault but must take a holistic view on the relationship [Paras 44–49].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – DV proceedings quashed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Divorce granted under Article 142(1) – Appellant-Husband directed to pay ₹70,22,871/- (after deducting ₹4,77,129/- towards PPF Account) and hand over PPF passbook within two weeks – Parties to execute relinquishment deeds before jurisdictional Registrar within four weeks – Amount of ₹89,00,000/- deposited by Respondent-Wife before High Court to be returned with accrued interest – All pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, their family members and relatives, arising out of or in relation to the marriage, stand closed and quashed – Bar on future proceedings [Paras 55–56].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Sentence – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – Perverse Reduction of Fine – Respondent-accused issued two cheques for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively, both of which were dishonoured – Trial Court, upon recording conviction, sentenced the respondent to two years' imprisonment with fine of double the cheque amounts – Appellate Court upheld conviction and sentence – High Court in revision, mistakenly assuming it was exercising appellate power, interfered with the quantum of fine on the ground that no reason was given by the Trial Court for imposing double the cheque amount as fine – High Court modified sentence to restrict fine to the cheque amount alone and set aside the term of imprisonment entirely, without awarding any interest – Held: The High Court's order is wholly perverse and manifestly erroneous; letting off a convicted accused by merely directing payment of the cheque amount — that too after ten years of dishonour and without any interest — results in the respondent suffering no penalty whatsoever for a proved offence; such exercise of revisional jurisdiction is indefensible and liable to be set aside [Paras 6–8, 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Settlement – Undertaking to Pay – Time Granted – The respondent, through his counsel, proposed to pay Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty-five lakhs) towards full and final settlement of dues to the appellant by 31.08.2026 – Appellant's counsel agreed to accept the same with reluctance – Held: Recording the specific undertaking given by the respondent, time granted till 31.08.2026 to make payment; in the event of default, the appellant shall be at liberty to apply for revival of the appeals whereupon the Court may consider sending the respondent to prison straight away [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dated 27.01.2025 set aside as wholly perverse and manifestly erroneous – Respondent directed to pay Rs.45,00,000/- to the appellant by 31.08.2026 – Liberty to apply for revival of appeals in case of default – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Enforcement of Consent Award – Indemnity Obligation – Trigger Point – Appellant-companies enforcing a Consent Award dated 01.03.2019 passed by SIAC, incorporating a Deed of Compromise whereby Respondent-Promoters undertook to defend specified litigation and ensure no liability was recovered from Appellants – High Court deferred enforcement holding obligation arose only upon confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal – Held: High Court committed error in restricting operative effect to the fifth limb of Paragraph 32(a) alone while rendering the fourth limb otiose – Liability crystallised upon court-directed deposit of Rs. 15,86,17,808/- by Appellants – Enforcement Petition allowed – Promoters directed to pay/deposit the said amount within 30 days [Paras 8–29].

Contract of Indemnity – Absolute vs. Contingent Obligation – Construction of Paragraph 32(a) – Fourth limb of the Consent Award imposed an unconditional obligation on Promoters to "ensure that no liability in regard to the said litigation is recovered from VPS/Medeor by the Forum" – Word "ensure" combined with the broad contractual definition of "Forum" pointed to an absolute obligation – Fifth limb providing for discharge within 30 days after confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal was a backstop guarantee for extreme scenarios, not the primary trigger – Treating fifth limb as the sole operative obligation converts a performance timeline into the indemnity trigger, contrary to established principles of contractual construction – Held: Where liability incurred is absolute, indemnity holder is entitled to call upon indemnifier without awaiting confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal [Paras 19–26].

Contractual Construction – Consent Award – Rules of Interpretation – Consent Award is equivalent to a Consent Decree, being a contract between parties with the court's seal super-added – Courts must give effect to every limb of the contract and cannot render any part otiose – Literal rule of construction to be applied first; purposive construction permissible only where literal reading produces absurdity – High Court's purposive construction ignored the clear and immediate obligation in the fourth limb and produced a paradox whereby Promoters could escape liability entirely by choosing not to appeal to the Supreme Court – Held: Plain reading of all five limbs together yields an immediate enforceable obligation; purposive construction unavailable where literal reading is clear [Paras 17, 20–28].

Internal Self-Contradiction in Impugned Judgment – High Court rejected Promoters' argument that "Forum" meant only the Highest Court of Appeal, yet adopted the same conclusion that liability was payable only after confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal – Such self-contradiction within the same paragraph rendered the impugned judgment erroneous – Further, High Court ignored the already-crystallised liability arising from its own direction to Medeor to deposit the full award amount for a conditional stay [Paras 16.1–16.5].

Reliance on Precedents – Commercial Contracts – Strict Construction – Promoters' reliance on Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. held misplaced – Both decisions support VPS/Medeor, as they mandate that in commercial contracts courts must give paramount importance to the exact words used and are prohibited from adding, deleting, or substituting words under the guise of interpretation – High Court's departure from the plain terms of the Consent Award was contrary to the ratio of these very decisions [Para 27].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment set aside – Enforcement Petition allowed – Promoters granted 30 days to pay or deposit Rs. 15,86,17,808/- for the benefit of VPS/Medeor – Amount subject to outcome of pending proceedings between EY and Promoters – No order as to costs [Paras 29–30].

Road Safety – National Highways – Suo Motu Cognizance – Interim Directions – Article 21 and Article 142 of the Constitution – Following the loss of 34 lives in road accidents at Phalodi (Rajasthan) and Rangareddy (Telangana) on 02-03.11.2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of systemic infrastructure failures and administrative negligence on National Highways – Amicus Curiae appointed – Joint suggestions tendered by learned Solicitor General and Amicus Curiae – Held: National Highways constitute approximately 2% of India's total road length but account for nearly 30% of all road fatalities – Right to safe passage is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 – Comprehensive interim directions issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 [Paras 1, 4, 5].

Illegal Parking – Prohibition on National Highways – Advanced Traffic Management – No heavy or commercial vehicle shall park on any National Highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at designated bays or Wayside Amenities – Enforcement through ATMS real-time alerts, GPS-timestamped photographic evidence, and integrated eChallan generation – District Magistrates directed to set up standard operating procedures for periodical inspections and patrolling – Compliance within 60 days [Para 4(a)].

Highway Encroachments – Inspection, Survey and Grievance Redressal – NHAI, NHIDCL and State PWDs directed to file consolidated report within 30 days covering encroachment identification, notices under Section 26 of the CNH Act and demolitions – Rajmargyatra encroachment complaint module, toll-free number 1033, and drone-based aerial surveys under DRAMS Policy Circular (05.09.2025) to be operationalised – Six-monthly reports to be filed before this Court [Para 4(b)].

Encroachment Prohibition and Removal – Construction or operation of any new dhaba, eatery, or commercial structure within the Right of Way of any National Highway prohibited with immediate effect – District Magistrates directed to enforce demolition of all unauthorised structures within 60 days in terms of CNH Act procedure and SOP dated 07.08.2025 – No licence, NOC, or trade approval to be granted for sites within Highway safety zones without prior NHAI/PWD clearance [Paras 4(c), 4(d)].

District Highway Safety Task Force – Constitution Directed – District Magistrate of every district through which a National Highway passes directed to constitute a District Highway Safety Task Force within 15 days comprising officers of District Administration, Police, NHAI, PWD, and local bodies – Task Force to hold fortnightly review meetings – State Governments directed to issue notifications within 60 days prohibiting change of land use within 40 metres (residential) and 75 metres (commercial) from the mid-point of any National Highway [Para 4(e)].

Highway Surveillance and Patrolling – ATMS Operationalisation – Dedicated Highway Surveillance Teams of State Police and Transport Department to be constituted within 30 days – Patrol vehicles at intervals not exceeding 50 km, equipped with Vehicle Tracking Devices – NHAI directed to operationalise ATMS comprising TMCC cameras, VSDS speed detectors, VIDS cameras, Variable Message Signboards, and Emergency Call Boxes across all 4/6-lane highways within 60 days [Paras 4(f), 4(g)].

Emergency Response – Wayside Amenities – Accident Blackspots – BLS ambulances and recovery cranes to be deployed within 60 days at intervals not exceeding 75 km on every National Highway – Truck lay-bye facilities to be constructed at intervals of every 75 km with priority to the Amritsar-Jamnagar Highway – MoRTH/NHAI directed to publish comprehensive list of accident blackspots within 45 days and install high-intensity LED lighting, speed enforcement cameras, and retro-reflective warning signs at every blackspot within 4 months of Policy Framework [Paras 4(h), 4(i), 4(k)].

Institutional Co-ordination and Compliance – MoRTH directed to place before this Court within 60 days a report on the constitution of an Inter-State Highway Safety Coordination Committee – All implementing agencies (NHAI, NHIDCL, State PWD, BRO) jointly and severally responsible for compliance – Consolidated district-wise and agency-wise compliance report to be filed in tabular form within 75 days – Copy of order directed to be sent to Chief Secretaries/Administrators and DGPs of all States and Union Territories [Paras 4(l), 4(m), 6].

Decision: Interim directions issued – Matter listed after two months for reporting compliance.