Motor Accident Compensation – Just Compensation – Proof of Income – Mandatory future prospects for fixed salary employee below 40 years – “Loss of love and affection” not a separate head – Such loss subsumed within consortium – Compensation enhanced.

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Governing Principles – Compensation under Sections 166 and 168 is not a bonanza but a fair and reasonable estimate to alleviate financial and emotional hardship of dependants – Determination involves estimation guided by settled legal principles and binding precedents – Award must balance fairness, consistency and equity [Paras 12–14].

Assessment of Income – Documentary Proof – Error by High Court – Salary certificate issued by employer (Ex. P-14) and corroborated by employer’s affidavit clearly established monthly income of deceased at Rs. 10,000/- – Insurer failed to impeach evidence – Courts cannot resort to conjecture when cogent evidence is available – Income fixed at Rs. 10,000/- per month [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – Fixed Salary Employee – Mandatory Addition – Deceased aged 37 years and employed on fixed monthly salary – As per Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi, addition of 40% towards future prospects is compulsory – High Court’s failure to grant future prospects held to be manifest error of law – Binding nature of Article 141 reiterated [Paras 17–19].

Computation of Loss of Dependency – Monthly income Rs. 10,000/- – Addition of 40% towards future prospects – Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses – Multiplier of 15 applicable – Total loss of dependency computed at Rs. 18,90,000/- [Paras 20].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Love and Affection – Not Maintainable as Separate Head – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi overruled Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh – Compensation confined to loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses – Award of separate compensation for “loss of love and affection” impermissible [Paras 22–24, 29].

Consortium – Expanded Meaning – Spousal, Parental and Filial Consortium – Consortium is a compendious term encompassing spousal, parental and filial consortium – Emotional deprivation of love, care, affection and companionship subsumed within consortium – Principle clarified in Magma General Insurance and harmonised in Satinder Kaur [Paras 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedents – Constitution Bench decisions bind courts of lesser strength – Tribunals and High Courts must adhere to structured formula and recognised heads to maintain uniformity and certainty in awards [Paras 23, 28].

Final Award – Re-determination by Supreme Court – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- – Interest awarded @ 9% p.a. from date of filing of claim petition till realization considering prolonged litigation of 15 years – Insurer directed to pay balance within twelve weeks [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court modified – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 20,80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. – Insurer directed to deposit balance amount within stipulated period.

Land Reforms – Vesting under WBEA Act – Revenue Officer has no statutory power to review concluded vesting order – Executive directions cannot confer review jurisdiction – Review order passed after four decades held void – Company failed to prove exclusive engagement in farming under Section 6(1)(j) – High Court judgment set aside.

West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – Vesting of Land – Finality of Determination – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 passed after full adjudication denying benefit under Section 6(1)(j) attained finality after dismissal of writ petition in 1975, rejection of restoration in 1987 and dismissal of appeal in 2002 – Respondent-company stood divested of land and ceased to have any right, title or interest therein [Paras 9–13].

Power of Review – Quasi-Judicial Authorities – No Inherent Power – Power of review is not inherent and must be expressly conferred by statute – Revenue Officer under WBEA Act is a quasi-judicial authority and cannot exercise review in absence of specific statutory provision – Sections 53, 57, and 57A do not confer substantive power of review [Paras 31–35].

Section 57A – Investment of Civil Court Powers – Limited Scope – Conferment of “all powers of a Civil Court” under Section 57A does not include power of substantive review – Review being a core judicial function requires explicit legislative mandate – Omnibus conferment cannot be read to include review [Paras 34–35, 49].

Section 57B – Statutory Bar on Reopening Concluded Matters – Proviso to Section 57B(3) expressly prohibits Revenue Officer from reopening matters already enquired into or decided – 1971 vesting order fell squarely within statutory bar – Review proceedings directly contravened legislative command [Paras 50–52].

Separation of Powers – Independence of Judiciary – Executive Overreach – Review of concluded quasi-judicial orders by executive authorities violates doctrine of separation of powers forming part of basic structure – Executive authorities cannot sit in judgment over their own decisions – Allowing such review would erode finality and rule of law [Paras 37–39, 56–57].

Government Order – No Jurisdictional Cure – Government Order dated 26.02.2008 directing review could not confer jurisdiction where none existed – Executive instructions cannot override statutory limits – Ministerial approval does not substitute legislative conferment of power [Paras 18, 49, 91].

Scope of Review – Review Not an Appeal in Disguise – Review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous sufficient reasons – Reappreciation of evidence or policy considerations impermissible – Review order of 2008 failed all statutory tests under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 59–63, 74–83].

Section 6(1)(j) – Retention of Land by Company – Exclusive Engagement in Farming – Company must prove exclusive engagement in agricultural farming as on 01.01.1952 – Mere ownership of agricultural land, payment of agricultural tax or inclusion of agriculture in MOA insufficient – Respondent failed to discharge burden despite repeated opportunities – 1971 vesting order legally sound [Paras 64–71, 73].

Belated Documents – No Ground for Review – Documents relied upon in 2008 review either existed earlier or were generated decades later – Failure to produce documents during original proceedings defeats claim of “discovery” – Review cannot be used to cure negligence [Paras 75–76, 71].

Delay – Review After Four Decades – Impermissible – Review initiated after nearly forty years without legally sustainable explanation – Non-distribution of land, continued possession or non-payment of compensation do not invalidate vesting – Economic expediency or employment potential irrelevant for review [Paras 83].

Doctrine of Estoppel – No Estoppel Against Statute – Promissory estoppel cannot validate an action taken without jurisdiction – Withdrawal of cases or alleged settlement cannot legitimise void review order [Paras 87].

Nullity – Order Without Jurisdiction – Order passed without jurisdiction is void ab initio – Can be challenged at any stage even without specific prayer – Tribunal competent to quash review order [Paras 88–89].

Tribunal and High Court – Error Corrected – Tribunal rightly quashed review order for lack of jurisdiction – High Court erred in restoring review by conflating executive direction with statutory power – High Court judgment unsustainable [Paras 92–93].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Calcutta High Court dated 17.05.2012 set aside – Order of Tribunal dated 31.03.2010 restored – Review order dated 07.05.2008 quashed – Vesting order dated 07.10.1971 to continue to operate in accordance with law.

Constitutional Law – Advisory Committee – Transgender Rights – Modification of Earlier Order – Appointment of Members – Miscellaneous Application filed by Amicus Curiae seeking inclusion of a Senior Associate of the Centre for Law and Policy Research as a member of the Advisory Committee constituted by Supreme Court order dated 17.10.2025 – Court noted that the earlier nominated member had ceased to be associated with the Centre – However, in view of her extensive work in the field of transgender rights, Court clarified that she would continue as a member of the Advisory Committee – In addition, Court appointed another Senior Associate of the Centre to ensure effective representation and functioning of the Committee – Held: Continuity of expertise and institutional representation justified appointment of additional member – Application disposed of with directions [Paras 1–5].

Judicial Directions – Continuity in Institutional Committees – Role of Amicus Curiae – Prayer made by learned Amicus Curiae for modification of composition of Advisory Committee – Supreme Court recognised importance of sustained scholarly and advocacy contribution in sensitive constitutional matters relating to transgender rights – Court exercised inherent powers to balance individual expertise with institutional representation – Directions issued in furtherance of effective implementation of earlier judgment [Paras 1, 3–4].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application allowed – Clarification issued regarding continuation of existing member – Additional member appointed to Advisory Committee – Application disposed of.

Interlocutory Application – Appointment of Technical Consultant – Supreme Court appoints former Chief Statistician of India as Technical Consultant to National Task Force – Ministry of Education directed to issue appointment order and provide administrative support and remuneration.

Interlocutory Application – Appointment of Expert – National Task Force – Application filed seeking appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant, former Chief Statistician of India, as Technical Consultant for comprehensive and scientific analysis of survey data – Prayer also made for administrative support and remuneration through Ministry of Education – Court heard Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General [Paras 1–2].

Expert Assistance – Role of Technical Consultant – Supreme Court held that expertise of former Chief Statistician of India necessary for scientific analysis of survey data by National Task Force – Dr. T.C.A. Anant appointed as Technical Consultant for said purpose [Para 3(i)].

Directions to Union Government – Ministry of Education – Ministry of Education directed to issue formal order of appointment of Dr. T.C.A. Anant at the earliest – Further directed to extend all necessary administrative support including infrastructure and data access – Appropriate remuneration/honorarium to be paid in accordance with prevalent norms [Paras 3(ii)–(iii)].

Disposal of Application – Interlocutory Application disposed of in terms of directions issued by the Court [Para 4].

Decision: Interlocutory Application allowed and disposed of – Dr. T.C.A. Anant appointed as Technical Consultant to National Task Force – Ministry of Education directed to issue appointment order and extend full administrative support and remuneration.

Evidence Act – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Power of Attorney – Admissibility – Defendant relied on a notarised photocopy of Power of Attorney (Exh. B-2) to justify execution of registered sale deeds – Original Power of Attorney not produced – No foundational facts laid for loss or non-production of original – Mandatory requirements under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act not complied with – Held: Photocopy is no evidence in law and cannot be relied upon to prove authority to alienate immovable property [Paras 19–23].

Power of Attorney – Scope of Authority – Alleged Power to Sell – Fabrication and Interpolation – Plaintiff admitted execution of limited Power of Attorney but denied granting power to sell – Comparison of draft PoA and disputed PoA revealed interpolation of clauses relating to sale – Discrepancy in spacing and lack of cohesion in added words indicative of fabrication – Held: Defendant failed to prove that Plaintiff authorised sale of suit property [Paras 6, 8.2, 14–15].

Registration Act – Section 33 – Authentication of Power of Attorney – Sale deeds executed on strength of unregistered and unproven Power of Attorney – Presumption under Section 85 of Evidence Act unavailable in absence of proof of primary or valid secondary evidence – Held: Section 33 of Registration Act and Section 85 of Evidence Act do not apply unless document is duly proved [Paras 22–23].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Scope and Limits – High Court reversed First Appellate Court and restored Trial Court decree – Challenge that High Court re-appreciated evidence without framing substantial question of law – Held: Where findings of First Appellate Court are based on inadmissible evidence and misreading of documents, High Court is justified in interference – Correction of perversity and reliance on “no evidence” falls within jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC [Paras 16–17, 23].

Appellate Findings – Reliance on Inadmissible Evidence – Consequences – First Appellate Court relied upon unproven photocopy of Power of Attorney and undertook comparison of disputed signatures without expert assistance – Such approach contrary to settled principles – Held: Findings based on inadmissible evidence are perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 18.1, 23].

Sale Deeds – Authority of Agent – Burden of Proof – Burden lay on defendant–agent to prove existence and extent of authority to convey title – Failure to establish valid Power of Attorney rendered sale deeds void and non-binding on principal – Held: No title passed to vendees under impugned sale deeds [Paras 14, 19, 23].

Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed – Judgment of High Court upheld – Sale deeds executed on basis of unproven Power of Attorney declared void – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Rape on False Promise of Marriage – Married Prosecutrix – Quashing of FIR – Allegation of repeated sexual intercourse on assurance of marriage – Prosecutrix admittedly a married woman with subsisting marriage and pending divorce proceedings – Promise of marriage, even if assumed, not legally enforceable due to statutory bar under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act – Held: Consent not vitiated by misconception of fact – Allegations disclose consensual relationship gone sour and not rape – FIR and criminal proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 19–24, 27–28].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Section 90 IPC – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise reiterated – For vitiation of consent, promise must be false from inception and intended solely to obtain sexual favours – Prosecutrix being an advocate, aware of her marital status and legal incapacity to remarry – Held: No material to show deception from inception or inducement by fraud [Paras 17–18, 22–24].

Section 376(2)(n) IPC – Repeated Rape – Scope – Expression “repeatedly” contemplates multiple distinct acts of sexual assault under coercion, fear, captivity or continued deception – Not attracted to prolonged consensual relationships between adults – Present facts do not satisfy statutory ingredients of repeated rape [Paras 16, 19, 22].

Inherent and Constitutional Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet even if taken at face value do not constitute offence under Section 376 IPC – Continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law – Case squarely falling within categories laid down in Bhajan Lal – High Court erred in refusing to quash proceedings [Paras 26–28].

Misuse of Rape Law – Broken Relationships – Courts must guard against criminalisation of failed consensual relationships – Giving colour of rape to personal discord trivialises the gravity of the offence and causes grave injustice to accused – Strong caution sounded against misuse of criminal justice machinery [Paras 21, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of High Court dated 03.03.2025 set aside – FIR No. 213/2025 dated 06.02.2025, Chargesheet No. 269/2025 and Sessions Case No. 89/2025 quashed.

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Prolonged Incarceration – Parity – Appellant charged for offences under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act – Contraband allegedly seized was above commercial quantity – High Court denied regular bail – Appellant in custody for more than four years – Co-accused travelling on same flight already granted bail by Supreme Court – Held: Length of incarceration coupled with parity justified grant of bail notwithstanding commercial quantity bar – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1–3].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Jurisprudence – Article 21 – Speedy Trial – Continued detention for over four years without conclusion of trial weighed with the Court – Trial court directed to endeavour to conclude trial at the earliest – Held: Prolonged pre-trial custody offends personal liberty and must be balanced even in stringent statutes like NDPS Act [Paras 2–3].

Conditions of Bail – Passport – Cooperation in Trial – Appellant directed to surrender passport before trial court – Appellant to cooperate with trial proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments – Trial court to impose stringent conditions while releasing appellant on bail [Para 3].

Criminal Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Duty of Trial Courts – Appellant initially did not cross-examine witnesses – Cross-examination permitted only after engaging counsel and allowing re-examination – Supreme Court emphasised obligation of trial courts to inform accused of right to legal representation and availability of legal aid – Trial courts directed to record offer of legal aid, response of accused and action taken before commencing examination of witnesses – Directions issued to be followed scrupulously [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Directions – Communication to High Courts – Supreme Court directed that copy of order be communicated to Chief Justices of all High Courts – Purpose to ensure issuance of suitable instructions to trial courts within respective States regarding compliance with right to legal representation [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Order of Madras High Court dated 24.07.2025 set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on conditions to be fixed by trial court – No observations on merits of case [Paras 3–6].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legally Enforceable Right – Outcome: Affirmed – Dearness Allowance (DA) is a compensatory measure against inflation, not a bounty, designed to protect the real value of wages and maintain a minimum standard of living – The High Court's finding in the first round of litigation that DA is a legally enforceable right, having attained finality due to no appeal, is binding on the parties – Once a legal right to DA is established, the State's financial inability or paucity of funds cannot be a ground to deny its payment, as constitutional duties cannot be evaded on such grounds – DA is an integral part of salary and its denial impacts the right to life and livelihood under Article 21 – The State, as a model employer, must honor its statutory obligations – The argument of financial difficulty is rejected [Paras 2, 22, 23, 48, 50, 52, 59.2].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Legislation by Incorporation (AICPI) – Outcome: Affirmed – The West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2009 (RoPA Rules), promulgated under Article 309, incorporated the definition of 'existing emoluments' from Central Government Rules, thereby adopting the All-India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) as the standard for DA calculation – This constitutes 'legislation by incorporation', meaning the AICPI, a statistically rigorous measure compiled by the Labour Bureau, becomes the determinative standard – Once the State incorporated AICPI into its rules, it cannot deviate from this mechanism without a proper study or formal amendment to the rules – The incorporation of AICPI is not a one-time measure but a dynamic standard for DA determination [Paras 10, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 59.3].

Constitutional Law – Executive Instructions vs. Statutory Rules – Article 309, Article 162 – Outcome: Memoranda held ultra vires – Rules made under Article 309 have statutory force and cannot be overridden or contradicted by executive instructions issued under Article 162 – Executive instructions can only fill gaps in statutory rules, not deviate from or amend them – The First Memorandum and subsequent memoranda issued by the State, which prescribed DA rates without reference to the AICPI standard stipulated in the RoPA Rules, were an improper exercise of power and are ultra vires the substantive rules – The doctrine of severance applies, ensuring the RoPA Rules remain unaffected despite the invalidity of these memoranda [Paras 27, 35, 36, 37, 39, 62, 75, 76, 77, 87, 88].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrariness – Article 14 – Outcome: State action held arbitrary – State action must be reasonable, rational, and not arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious – The doctrine of 'manifest arbitrariness' applies to both subordinate and plenary legislation – The State's deviation from the AICPI standard, explicitly incorporated into its RoPA Rules, without any reasoned basis or independent study, constitutes 'manifest arbitrariness' and violates Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 38, 39, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87].

Service Law – Legitimate Expectation – Outcome: Affirmed – A legitimate expectation arises from a public authority's representation or established practice, founded on law or custom – The enactment of the RoPA Rules and the explicit recognition of AICPI as the determinative factor for DA computation created a legitimate expectation among employees for DA to be calculated and paid accordingly [Paras 40, 88, 89, 93].

Constitutional Law – Federalism – Financial Autonomy – Outcome: State's defence rejected – India's federal structure ensures constitutional division of powers and financial autonomy for States, meaning State Governments are not obligated to automatically adopt Central Government DA rates – However, when a State, in its independent wisdom, incorporates Central Government definitions (like AICPI) into its own statutory rules, it cannot then invoke the defence of separation of powers or financial autonomy to justify arbitrary deviation from its own adopted standard – The argument of pan-India implications for other States is not relevant to this lis as the appellant-State's actions were based on its own legislative choice [Paras 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 59, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Frequency of Payment – Outcome: Not a right – The RoPA Rules do not explicitly mandate that DA be paid twice a year – This omission is a matter within the State's discretion and fiscal policy, and judicial direction cannot introduce such a provision where the statutory text is silent – The Tribunal's direction for DA to be paid twice a year was without authority of law [Paras 49, 106, 107].

Service Law – Dearness Allowance – Fundamental Right – Outcome: Question left open – While the High Court held DA to be a facet of Article 21, the parties before the Supreme Court jointly agreed not to press this question, leaving it open for determination in an appropriate future case [Para 56, 118].

Service Law – Delay and Laches – Outcome: Rejected – The State's contention regarding delay and laches is rejected because the non-payment of appropriate DA rates constituted a continuing wrong and recurring cause of action – Legal redressal was pursued while the cause of action subsisted, and employees were relentlessly pursuing their remedies [Paras 57, 58, 118, 119, 120].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Contempt petitions disposed of – Dearness Allowance is a legally enforceable right – AICPI is the standard for determining 'existing emoluments' – Employees are entitled to arrears for the period 2008-2019 – Amounts disbursed in compliance with this judgment shall not be recoverable – A Committee comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra (Retd. SC Judge), Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Goutam Bhaduri (Former CJ/Judge HC), and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (or his nominee) is constituted to determine the total amount and payment schedule by March 6, 2026, with the first installment to be paid by March 31, 2026 – Retired employees are also entitled to these benefits – The State is directed to file a status report by April 15, 2026 – No order as to cost [Paras 59.1-59.9, 60].

Hindu Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Presumption – Burden of Proof – Suit for partition filed by coparcener claiming share in 79 items of agricultural lands – Admitted existence of joint family and ancestral properties – Item Nos. 14 and 15 proved to be ancestral income-yielding lands – Acquisitions made during subsistence of joint family – Held: Once existence of ancestral nucleus capable of yielding income is shown, burden shifts to person asserting self-acquisition to establish independent source – Mere proof of some independent income of Karta insufficient to rebut presumption [Paras 29–31].

Joint Family – Karta – Properties Standing in Name of Karta – Character – Properties purchased in name of Karta during continuance of joint family – Hindu law does not require coparceners to establish exact source of funds for each acquisition – Held: Properties acquired in name of Karta during subsistence of joint family ordinarily bear joint family character unless contrary is proved by clear evidence [Paras 29–30].

Self-acquisition – Independent Income – Proof – Appellant claimed several suit properties as self-acquired based on alleged independent income from contracting and business activities – Evidence showed appellant was a student till mid-1960s – Courts below found claim of substantial independent income during relevant period improbable – Held: Findings based on realistic appraisal of evidence cannot be interfered with in appeal [Paras 31–32].

Partition – Prior Partition or Severance of Status – Proof – Plea of prior partition based on separate enjoyment, borrowings and irrigation facilities – Held: Separate possession or enjoyment does not constitute partition – Clear intention to sever joint status must be established – Absence of mutation, division of liabilities or declaration negates plea of prior partition [Para 32].

Alienation by Karta – Legal Necessity – Sale in Favour of Coparcener – Multiple sale deeds executed by Karta in favour of one son – Courts undertook item-wise scrutiny – Alienations upheld only where legal necessity such as medical expenses or debt discharge was proved – Held: Alienations by Karta in favour of one coparcener must be strictly proved to be for legal necessity – General or vague recitals insufficient to bind interests of other coparceners [Para 33].

Guardian Sale – Minor’s Property – Court Permission – Effect – Properties belonging to branch of deceased coparcener sold by Karta as guardian of minors – Though court permission obtained, surrounding circumstances and use of sale proceeds scrutinised – Held: Sale does not automatically lose joint family character – Courts justified in setting aside such alienations where necessity and benefit to minors not proved [Para 34].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Proof – Unregistered Will allegedly executed three days prior to death of Karta – Testator habitually signed documents but used thumb impression – Will scribed by close relative – Attesting circumstances doubtful – Held: Presence of suspicious circumstances justified rejection of Will – Rejection having attained finality cannot be reopened at later stage [Para 35].

Admissions – Estoppel – Partition Suits – Admissions relied upon by appellant regarding payments and transactions – Held: Such admissions did not conclusively establish self-acquisition nor operate as estoppel against asserting joint family character [Paras 23, 35].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Scope of Interference – High Court granted limited relief by excluding certain items proved to be purchased from third parties – Otherwise affirmed concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Held: Supreme Court will not interfere with well-reasoned concurrent findings unless perversity shown [Paras 37–38].

Decision – Civil Appeals dismissed – Judgment of High Court affirmed with limited exclusions already granted – No order as to costs [Paras 38–39].