Sexual Harassment Complaint – Limitation under POSH Act – Complaint Held Time-Barred – The appellant, a faculty member at NUJS, filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor in December 2023, with the last alleged incident occurring in April 2023 – The LCC rejected the complaint as time-barred – The Single Judge of the High Court reversed the LCC’s decision, holding that subsequent hostile acts extended the limitation – The Division Bench restored the LCC’s rejection, holding the administrative acts post-April 2023 did not constitute sexual harassment or extend the limitation period – Held: The last actionable incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023; subsequent administrative measures were unrelated and did not amount to continuing sexual harassment – Complaint was rightly dismissed as time-barred under Section 9 of the POSH Act – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–2, 4–7, 13–14, 21–26, 29–32].

Continuing vs Recurring Wrong – Application under POSH Act – The Court distinguished between a “continuing wrong” where the injury persists, and a “recurring wrong” where new cause of action arises – Held: The act of April 2023 was a completed act and not a continuing one – Later administrative actions, although adverse, were collective decisions unrelated to any sexual misconduct – Thus, did not revive limitation [Paras 28–29].

Judicial Approach – Rejection of Complaints at Threshold – The Court clarified that while limitation may be a mixed question of law and fact, a complaint can be dismissed at the threshold if it is patently barred by limitation – Analogous to Order VII Rule 11 CPC – This applied in the present case [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's view that the complaint was time-barred and should not have been revived – However, the Court directed that the judgment noting the wrongdoing be added to the Vice-Chancellor’s resume as a lasting consequence – No relief granted to appellant, but wrongdoing noted [Paras 32–35].

Public Interest Litigation – Deaths in Beggars’ Home due to Cholera – Article 21 – Constitutional Violation Established – Appellant filed a PIL after media reports revealed deaths and illness of several beggars due to contamination in drinking water at Lampur Beggars’ Home – Authorities failed to ensure sanitary conditions and misrepresented facts – Held: Deaths amounted to violation of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 – Supreme Court recognized the need for judicial intervention and systemic reform [Paras 3-10, 18-20].

Institutional Negligence – Departmental Proceedings – Compliance Noted – Respondents submitted that departmental proceedings were concluded and penalties imposed – Court accepted compliance on that front – However, held that mere disciplinary actions were insufficient without sustained structural reforms and monitoring [Paras 21-22].

Beggars’ Homes – Paradigm Shift in Approach – From Penal to Protective Institutions – Constitutional Reframing – Court held that Beggars’ Homes must be viewed through a constitutional lens, aligned with Articles 38, 39(e), 41, and 47 – Emphasised shift from colonial punitive mindset to rehabilitation and dignity-based frameworks – Institutions must ensure health, freedom, privacy, and humane conditions [Paras 16-16.7].

Right to Life with Dignity – Expanded Interpretation – Article 21 – Applicability to Institutionalised Persons – Reaffirmed that all persons, including those in State custody, are entitled to humane treatment, adequate nutrition, healthcare, and dignity – Denial of such constitutes constitutional breach – Emphasised that beggars, unlike convicts, are not criminals and cannot be treated as such [Paras 15-16.6].

Anti-Begging Laws – Judicial Review – Validity and Purpose – The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act and similar laws in other States examined – Court acknowledged State’s interest in regulating begging but cautioned against criminalising poverty – Enforcement must balance public order with constitutional rights – Reiterated Delhi High Court’s earlier partial striking down of such laws [Paras 17-17.5].

Judicial Monitoring – Long-Term Oversight by Supreme Court – Compliance Recorded – From 2004 onwards, Supreme Court issued multiple detailed directions for improvement in Beggars’ Homes – Continuous monitoring led to structural changes, enhanced hygiene, staffing, vocational training, food quality, and medical care – Final reports showed significant compliance and nil complaints from inmates – Court stressed need for reforms to be sustained across India [Paras 22-22.18].

Final Directions – Nationwide Reform Mandated – Article 21 – Court Issued Model Framework – Directions issued to all States/UTs covering medical screening, disease control, hygiene, infrastructure audits, dietary standards, vocational training, legal aid, child and gender-sensitive provisions, and accountability mechanisms – Directed Union Ministry to issue model guidelines within 3 months – Held: Failure to maintain humane conditions in such institutions constitutes breach of fundamental rights [Paras 23-23.3].

Judgment – Appeal Disposed – Structural Reforms Ordered – Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal – Reiterated State's affirmative duty under Article 21 – Upheld PIL’s maintainability – Issued binding directions to State and Union authorities to overhaul Beggars’ Homes nationwide – Liberty granted to seek further directions if needed [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law – Limitation – Validity of Sale Deed – Plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share in agricultural land – Alleged that sale deed dated 14.06.1973 executed in favour of defendant was fraudulent and without consideration – Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred – First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the sale deed was void and suit filed within 12 years under Article 65 Limitation Act, 1963 – High Court affirmed the decree but held Article 59 applied, though suit was still within limitation – Supreme Court clarified that since sale deed was void ab initio, Article 65 (12 years) applied, not Article 59 (3 years) – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–15, 24–41].

Limitation Act – Article 65 vs Article 59 – Court distinguished between void and voidable instruments – Article 59 applies only to voidable instruments requiring cancellation (fraudulent misrepresentation as to contents) – Article 65 applies to suits for possession based on title where the impugned document is void/void ab initio (fraud as to character or want of consideration) – Plaintiff, not being party to the void transaction, need not seek cancellation – Merely seeking joint possession suffices [Paras 25–29, 31–33].

Evidence – Proof of Fraudulent Sale Deed – Plaintiffs proved that thumb impressions on sale deed were not theirs – Expert testimony unchallenged – Defendant failed to produce original sale deed or prove payment of sale consideration of ₹15,000 – Husband of defendant, alleged to have paid balance ₹6,000, not examined – Attesting witness (brother of defendant) considered biased – Sarpanch attesting witness deceased – Courts held absence of valid execution and want of consideration rendered deed void [Paras 27, 35–38].

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Essential element of sale is transfer of ownership for a price – Sale without consideration is void – In present case, defendant failed to prove payment of consideration – Sale deed therefore void, conferring no title [Paras 34–38].

Principles Restated – (i) Void documents need not be cancelled; possession can be claimed under Article 65 – (ii) Burden lies on party relying on sale deed to prove valid execution and consideration – (iii) Limitation runs from date possession becomes adverse, not from date of void deed – (iv) Courts must distinguish between fraudulent misrepresentation as to character (void) and contents (voidable) of document [Paras 28–29, 31–33, 39–40].

Decision – Supreme Court dismissed appeal – Held that sale deed dated 14.06.1973 was void ab initio – Suit filed on 28.02.1984 within 12 years of sale deed was within limitation under Article 65 – High Court erred in applying Article 59 but rightly upheld maintainability of suit – Plaintiffs entitled to joint possession – Appeal dismissed [Paras 40–41].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Homebuyers as Financial Creditors – Speculative Investor – Appellants (Mansi Brar Fernandes and Sunita Agarwal) had invested in real estate projects under MoUs containing buyback clauses and assured returns – NCLT admitted their Section 7 IBC applications treating them as homebuyers/financial creditors – NCLAT set aside admission branding them speculative investors – Supreme Court held that transactions were structured for assured financial returns, possession was never intended, and MoUs resembled investment contracts rather than genuine home-buying agreements – Affirmed NCLAT’s finding that appellants were speculative investors disentitled from initiating CIRP – Liberty granted to pursue remedies before other fora without limitation bar [Paras 18.5 – 18.8, 24(i)]

IBC Amendment Ordinance 2019 – Applicability – Ordinance introduced threshold requirement for initiation of CIRP by homebuyers – In present case, Section 7 petition was filed on 18.03.2019, arguments heard on 04.12.2019, order reserved, and admitted by NCLT on 02.01.2020 without considering Ordinance (effective 28.12.2019) – Court held that once orders were reserved, compliance with Ordinance before pronouncement was impossible – Principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit applied – Subsequent compliance during appellate proceedings cured defect – NCLAT erred in holding Ordinance inapplicable – First impugned order set aside to this limited extent [Paras 19 – 19.7, 24(ii)]

Right to Shelter – Constitutional Protection – Court reiterated that right to shelter is part of Article 21 – Housing is not a commodity for speculation but a fundamental human need – State has constitutional obligation to protect homebuyers and ensure timely completion of projects – Directed Government to strengthen NCLT/NCLAT infrastructure, ensure functional RERA authorities, frame guidelines for real estate insolvency, consider creation of revival fund, and implement systemic reforms in housing sector [Paras 20 – 20.7, 21 – 21.2, 22, 23]

Speculative Investors vs Genuine Homebuyers – Court laid down indicators to identify speculative investors: assured returns/buyback clauses, insistence on refund with high interest, multiple unit purchases with unusual privileges, deviation from RERA model agreement, unrealistic interest rates (20–25% per annum), and absence of genuine intent to take possession – Clarified that such investors cannot initiate CIRP under IBC but may pursue alternative remedies [Paras 18.4.5 – 18.4.6]

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Findings of NCLAT branding appellants as speculative investors affirmed – Impugned orders setting aside admission of Section 7 applications sustained – However, Ordinance/Amendment Act held applicable to facts of case – Directions issued to strengthen institutional framework and protect genuine homebuyers – No order as to costs [Paras 24–25]

Legal Metrology – Search and Seizure – Procedural Violations – Quashing of Notices – Appeal Allowed.

Search and Seizure – Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Appellant (ITC Limited) challenged seizure of 7,600 pre-packed notebooks from its warehouse by Legal Metrology officials for alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Seizure conducted under Section 15 of the 2009 Act without obtaining warrant or recording “reasons to believe” – High Court’s Division Bench upheld seizure, reversing Single Judge’s quashing order – Held: Seizure was illegal – Officials failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Sections 100(4), 165 of the Cr.P.C – No warrant obtained – No reasons to believe recorded – Single witness (driver) not independent – No urgency or exigency pleaded – Procedural violations vitiated entire action [Paras 11-23].

Criminal Procedure – Application of Cr.P.C to Special Acts – Section 15(4) of the Legal Metrology Act mandates compliance with Cr.P.C for search and seizure – Search requires “reasons to believe” and warrant unless exigency shown – Presence of two independent witnesses mandatory under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C – Held: Procedural safeguards under Cr.P.C applicable unless explicitly excluded – Respondent’s claim of “inspection” without warrant unsustainable – Premises, though commercial, not “public” for warrant exemption – CFC packages stored in warehouse do not constitute “wholesale packages” merely due to bulk [Paras 14-20].

Natural Justice – Violation of Principles – Simultaneous issuance of seizure and compounding notices deprived appellant of opportunity to be heard – No hearing granted – No opportunity for objections – Held: Violation of natural justice evident – Division Bench erred in not appreciating legal necessity of procedural compliance [Paras 7.5, 20.1].

Technical Violation – Rule 24 of 2011 Rules – Packages had declarations affixed as labels instead of being printed – Held: Declarations existed – At best, violation was technical – Supported by Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Raj Marketing (2011) 15 SCC 525 – Seizure not justified in absence of material inconsistency in declared particulars [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Search and seizure held illegal – Orders passed by Division Bench of High Court and impugned notices/quasi-criminal proceedings quashed – Order of Single Judge restored – No costs [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law – Counter-Claim – Maintainability – Defendant no.2 sought to file a counter-claim for specific performance of an agreement dated 21.10.2011 and partition of property after issues had already been framed in the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction – Trial Court rejected the application citing bar under Limitation Act and principles of CPC, especially Order VIII Rule 6A – High Court reversed the order, allowing the counter-claim citing appointment of Nazir (court officer) as triggering fresh cause of action – Supreme Court held that counter-claim directed solely against a co-defendant is impermissible – Further, counter-claim filed after framing of issues and considerable delay defeats the purpose of speedy trial and is barred by limitation – Held: High Court erred in reversing Trial Court – Counter-claim not maintainable [Paras 7, 8, 14, 17–24, 26, 27].

Counter-Claim – Against Co-Defendant – Not Maintainable – Defendant no.2 filed counter-claim primarily seeking specific performance of agreement executed by original defendant no.1 (now deceased) and secondarily sought partition – No substantial relief was claimed against the plaintiff – Supreme Court reiterated law laid down in Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar and Damodhar Narayan Sawale v. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske – Counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff; relief solely against a co-defendant not maintainable – Counter-claim cannot convert the suit into an interpleader action between defendants [Paras 17–23].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Counter-Claim – Issues were framed on 12.02.2019 – Counter-claim filed on 26.07.2021 – Specific performance sought for agreement dated 21.10.2011 – Defendant no.2 remained inactive despite knowledge of plaintiff’s challenge to agreement in 2012 and death of original vendor in 2013 – Cause of action arose in 2012 but counter-claim filed 9 years later – Barred under Article 54 of Limitation Act – Held: Limitation equally applies to counter-claims – Filing after framing of issues not permissible as per Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri – Trial Court rightly dismissed application [Paras 14, 24–25].

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Powers under Article 227 – High Court interfered with Trial Court’s discretionary order under supervisory jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that High Court failed to establish jurisdictional error – Exercise of Article 227 cannot override findings of Trial Court based on law and limitation – Trial Court correctly applied CPC provisions and precedents – High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction [Paras 13, 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.01.2023 set aside – Order of Trial Court dismissing defendant no.2’s application to amend written statement and file counter-claim restored – No order as to costs [Para 27–28].

Criminal Procedure – Joint vs. Separate Trial – Sections 218–223 Cr.P.C. – Segregation of MLA’s trial quashed – The trial court, affirmed by the High Court, ordered a separate charge-sheet and segregated trial for the appellant (a sitting MLA) to facilitate “day-to-day” hearing relying on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay – Held: Segregation solely due to MLA status, without notice or legal necessity, misapplies law; impugned orders set aside; joint trial directed [Paras 7, 10–12.1, 16.1, 21, 24–25].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Suo motu segregation without notice – Unfair procedure vitiates order – The trial court acted suo motu without prior notice or hearing to the appellant; mere presence of counsel is not equivalent to meaningful opportunity – Such departure from fair procedure infringes Article 21 and cannot be cured by subsequent progress of trial [Paras 12.1, 17–19].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Sections 218–223 Cr.P.C. – When joint trial is the norm – Where prosecution alleges one transaction/overarching conspiracy, with common witnesses and interlinked evidence, joint trial is warranted to avoid multiplicity, inconsistent findings and duplication – Separate trial requires cogent reasons such as demonstrable prejudice or distinct transactions; absent here [Paras 9, 13–14, 16, 22].

Precedents – Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay directions – Purpose is expedition, not derogation – Directions to prioritise MPs/MLAs’ cases do not authorise deviation from Cr.P.C. scheme or confer any procedural disadvantage upon an accused legislator – Equality before law under Article 14 forbids preferential segregation based on office held [Paras 15, 21, 23–23.1].

Case Management – Dealing with delay by co-accused – Proper course is to proceed against absconding or defaulting accused, not to sever a compliant accused – The trial court inverted the principle; no finding that joint trial would prejudice defence or cause delay; evidence from one trial cannot be imported into another, risking procedural complications [Paras 10, 16, 16.1, 18].

Investigative Discretion – Direction to file separate charge-sheet – Ultra vires – The discretion to file a charge-sheet lies with the investigating agency; court exceeded jurisdiction in directing a separate challan; even multiple charge-sheets in same transaction must ordinarily be tried together [Para 20].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned trial-court orders dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 and High Court judgment dated 12.12.2024 set aside – Direction to file separate charge-sheet and to segregate appellant’s trial quashed – Matter remitted for joint trial with co-accused; trial court to ensure expedition consistent with procedural safeguards after hearing all parties [Paras 24–26].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Allegations of Mutation on Forged Documents – FIR lodged in 2019 regarding mutation entries based on sale deed dated 18.05.1996 executed on forged powers of attorney in names of deceased landowners – Appellants (A5 and A6), Circle Officer and Talathi at the time, certified mutation entries Nos. 15177 and 15180 in 1996, which were later cancelled by Sub-Divisional Officer in 1998 – FIR lodged after more than 20 years – Supreme Court held that long delay cannot by itself efface allegations of misuse of official position in facilitating fraudulent transfer of immovable property [Paras 3–4, 7–9, 11, 13–14].

Official Capacity – Scope of Criminal Liability – Appellants contended that certification of mutation entries was done in discharge of official duty on the basis of facially valid registered sale deed – No role in preparation of forged documents, no dishonest intention, and no personal gain alleged – Supreme Court held that whether appellants shared criminal intent or colluded with beneficiary (A1) is a matter for trial and cannot be conclusively decided at anticipatory bail stage [Paras 5.1–5.2, 9, 12].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Appellants argued case is based on existing documentary evidence and custodial interrogation unnecessary – Court held that even in documentary fraud cases, custodial interrogation may be required to trace the chain of transactions, ascertain complicity, and prevent tampering of records – Appellants had interim protection for nearly six years but did not fully cooperate with investigation – Justification for custodial interrogation upheld [Paras 5.5, 10, 14].

Delay in Bail Adjudication – Constitutional Concerns – Anticipatory bail applications filed in 2019 remained pending in High Court for nearly six years – Interim protection granted continuously until final rejection on 04.07.2025 – Supreme Court strongly disapproved indefinite pendency of bail applications affecting personal liberty – Reiterated earlier rulings (Nikesh Tarachand Shah, Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre, Satendra Kumar Antil, Rajesh Seth, Sanjay, Rajanti Devi, Kavish Gupta, Amol Vitthal Vahile, etc.) – Directed High Courts and subordinate courts to decide bail/anticipatory bail applications expeditiously, preferably within two months [Paras 15–18.1].

Principles Restated – Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is a statutory right, not a fundamental right – Courts must balance personal liberty with fair investigation – Prolonged pendency of bail applications amounts to denial of justice – Administrative directions must be issued by High Courts to prioritise bail matters [Paras 16, 16.9, 17–18.1].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Rejection of anticipatory bail by Bombay High Court upheld – Appellants at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by observations in this judgment – Registrar (Judicial) directed to circulate judgment to all High Courts for compliance [Paras 19–20].

Environmental Law – Environmental Clearance – Building and Township Projects – Appeals under Section 22 of the NGT Act filed by CREDAI, Godrej Properties, and Sai Sahara Developers challenging NGT order dated 09.08.2024 – NGT had held that General Conditions (GC) under EIA 2006 Notification apply to Item 8(a) (Building and Construction) and Item 8(b) (Township/Area Development) – Directed MoEF&CC to treat such projects within 5 km of protected areas, critically/severely polluted areas, eco-sensitive zones, and inter-State boundaries as Category A projects requiring clearance by Central EAC – Supreme Court held NGT misread EIA 2006 – Column 5 of Schedule never subjected Items 8(a) & 8(b) to GC – Legislative intent was to decentralize appraisal to SEIAA/SEAC – General Conditions apply only where expressly provided – Kerala HC’s quashing of 2014 Notification was on procedural grounds and did not revive GC applicability [Paras 3, 11–21, 23–25].

Interpretation of EIA 2006 Notification – Literal Rule – Court reiterated that delegated legislation must be read literally – Wherever GC intended, Schedule expressly so provided (e.g., mining, thermal power, river-valley, cement, chemical industries, etc.) – Absence of such stipulation in Column 5 of Entry 8 meant deliberate exclusion – NGT erred in purposive reading contrary to statutory text [Paras 13–14, 26–27].

Sustainable Development – Balance Between Ecology and Development – Court reaffirmed principle of sustainable development as part of Indian constitutional and international law – Noted that while environmental protection is crucial, development cannot be stalled – Real estate projects directly affect housing rights under Article 21 – SEIAAs being expert statutory bodies are better placed to appraise projects in respective States/UTs – Over-centralization would burden MoEF&CC and delay housing delivery [Paras 31–37].

Validity of 2025 Notification – MoEF&CC issued Notification S.O. 523(E) dated 29.01.2025 clarifying that GC does not apply to Items 8(a) & 8(b) – Supreme Court in Vanashakti v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 166/2025, order dated 05.08.2025] upheld the Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a) exempting industrial sheds, schools, colleges, hostels) – Held such exclusion arbitrary and inconsistent with EP Act – Clarificatory OM dated 30.01.2025 extending notification to Kerala also upheld – Present appeals disposed of in light of coordinate Bench ruling [Paras 22–25].

Jurisdiction of NGT – Court held NGT exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining abstract policy questions absent a lis or claimant – Sections 14–15 of NGT Act envisage disputes involving relief, compensation, or restitution – Directions altering statutory framework of EIA regime beyond its mandate [Paras 5.7, 7.4, 24.1].

Principles Restated – (i) GC under EIA 2006 never applied to Building & Township projects – (ii) Delegated legislation must be interpreted literally – (iii) SEIAA/SEAC remain competent statutory bodies for appraisal – (iv) Sustainable development requires balancing environmental safeguards with housing needs – (v) NGT cannot transgress statutory limits by issuing directions contrary to legislative scheme [Paras 24.1–24.3, 25].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Impugned NGT order dated 09.08.2024 does not survive – 2025 Notification (excluding Note 1 to Entry 8(a)) and OM dated 30.01.2025 presently hold the field – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 25–27].