Environmental Law – Unauthorized Construction – The appellant constructed a Hotel-cum-Restaurant in the Bus Stand Complex without requisite permissions, in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's findings, directing the demolition of the illegal structure, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with environmental laws and the statutory provisions of the Forest Act [Paras 1-64].

Environmental Rule of Law – Emphasized the necessity for a rule of law framework in environmental governance to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The Court highlighted the significance of procedural and institutional elements in safeguarding environmental interests [Paras 46-53].

Role of Courts in Environmental Protection – The judgment underscored the judiciary's critical role in enforcing environmental laws and ensuring sustainable development. It reinforced that courts must provide meaningful legal remedies to redress environmental harm and deter future violations [Paras 54-58].

Illegal Activities on Forest Land – Confirmed that construction on forest land for purposes other than those permitted is illegal. Reiterated that unauthorized use of forest land without central government approval constitutes a violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [Paras 59-62].

Jurisdiction of NGT – Clarified that the NGT has the authority to adjudicate on violations of environmental obligations even if they involve statutes not listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act, provided the issue pertains to the implementation of an enactment specified in Schedule I [Paras 63].

Decision – Appeals disposed of – Held – The structure of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant in the Bus Stand Complex to be demolished within the stipulated timeline. The appellant and second respondent directed to comply strictly with the original orders issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) regarding the use of forest land for parking and bus stand purposes only [Paras 64-68].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Consensual Affair – The appellant argued that the minor girl's consent should be a defense due to their consensual relationship. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the consent of a minor is immaterial under Section 361 IPC. The Court noted that the statutory provisions do not allow for the consent of the minor as a valid defense and highlighted that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any grounds for acquittal [Paras 1-19].

Sentencing – Mitigating Factors – The Court observed several mitigating factors, including the absence of force, the young age of the appellant, the long passage of time since the incident, and the appellant's reformation. The sentence was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, considering these factors [Paras 20-27].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction upheld under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, but the sentence was reduced to the period already served by the appellant. The appellant was ordered to be released immediately [Para 28].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review of Speaker's Certification – The Supreme Court addressed whether the decision of the Speaker of the House of People under Article 110(3) of the Constitution to certify a bill as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110(1) is subject to judicial review. The Court held that while the certification by the Speaker is generally conclusive, it is subject to judicial review in cases of substantive illegality or constitutional infirmity [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Law – Certification of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill – The Court reviewed the majority opinion in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.), which held that the Aadhaar Act was correctly certified as a 'Money Bill.' The dissenting opinion by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud disagreed, emphasizing that the certification had significant constitutional implications and should be re-examined by a larger bench. The matter was referred to a larger bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. for a definitive determination [Paras 5-14].

Decision – Review Petitions Dismissed – Held – The majority dismissed the review petitions, affirming the certification of the Aadhaar Act as a 'Money Bill.' Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, dissenting, opined that the review petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench's decision in Rojer Mathew, as the outcome would significantly impact the constitutional validity of the certification [Paras 10-14].

Arbitration Law – Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement in Unstamped Contracts – The Supreme Court examined whether an arbitration agreement within an unstamped commercial contract is valid and enforceable. The Court held that the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement, not chargeable to stamp duty, and thus, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract does not invalidate the arbitration clause. The doctrine of separability was upheld, ensuring that arbitration agreements remain valid irrespective of the stamping status of the underlying contract. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for authoritative settlement due to the significant implications [Paras 1-11].

Arbitrability of Fraud – The Court reiterated that allegations of fraud in the performance of the underlying contract do not impede the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Such allegations should be adjudicated through arbitration unless the arbitration agreement itself is directly impeached on the grounds of fraud [Paras 12-18].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The arbitration agreement in the unstamped Work Order is valid and enforceable. The Court overruled the decision in SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 14 SCC 66 to the extent that it held that an arbitration agreement in an unstamped commercial contract cannot be acted upon. The case was referred to a Constitution Bench for an authoritative ruling on the applicability of Section 35 of the Stamp Act to arbitration agreements [Paras 19-24].

Consumer Law – Unfair Trade Practices – The Supreme Court examined whether the terms of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement, particularly those concerning penalties for delay and obligations of the buyers, constituted unfair trade practices under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court found that the agreement was heavily one-sided, in favor of the developer, and against the buyers, thereby constituting unfair trade practices. The Court emphasized that consumers should not be bound by such one-sided and oppressive terms [Paras 19.1-19.7].

Consumer Protection vs. Real Estate Regulation – The Court clarified that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, are concurrent remedies available to the consumers. The RERA Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain complaints about real estate projects. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act makes its provisions additional to any other law for the time being in force [Paras 20.1-20.4].

Delay in Possession – The Court addressed whether the 42-month period for handing over possession should be calculated from the date of the building plan approval or from the date of the Fire NOC. It concluded that the period should be calculated from the date of the Fire NOC, which is mandatory under the Haryana Fire Safety Act, 2009, and other related statutes [Paras 18.1-18.11].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was set aside. The Court directed that the possession period should be calculated from the date of the Fire NOC. The Apartment Buyer's Agreement terms found to be one-sided were declared void as they constituted unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Service – Appointment beyond Advertised Vacancies – The Supreme Court considered whether appointments to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate can be made beyond the number of probable vacancies advertised, as per Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991. The High Court had held that vacancies arising within a year of the approval of the select list by the Governor should be filled from the list, even if this exceeds the number of advertised vacancies. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, emphasizing that such appointments would contravene Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying equal opportunity to candidates eligible in subsequent recruitment years [Paras 1-9, 28-46].

Judicial Service Rules – Interpretation – The Court harmonized the amended Rule 7(2) with the directives in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3), stressing that while the Rule permits filling vacancies arising within one year from the approval of the select list, it should not violate the principle of equal opportunity. The Court noted that the recruitment process must adhere to a strict timeline and the number of vacancies notified [Paras 10-27, 30-31].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Court ruled that appointments beyond the advertised number of vacancies for the year 2019 cannot encroach upon vacancies arising in the year 2020. The High Court was directed to conduct a fresh selection process for vacancies arising in 2020 in accordance with the relevant rules and judicial directives [Paras 47-49].

Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction and Framework – The Supreme Court discussed the jurisdiction of arbitrators and the procedural framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the Act itself provides comprehensive procedures for challenging the appointment of arbitrators and that parties must adhere to these statutory provisions without resorting to extrastatutory mechanisms. The Court emphasized that arbitration agreements must fulfill the requirements of Section 7 of the Act and that the arbitral process is intended to be efficient and minimally judicially interfered [Paras 1-13].

Article 226/227 and Arbitral Process – The Court considered the circumstances under which the arbitral process could be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It held that judicial interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where a party is left remediless or in cases of bad faith. The Court stressed the importance of upholding the integrity and efficiency of the arbitral process, as outlined in the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act [Paras 10-19].

Applicability of Gujarat Act – The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992, to the contract in question. The Court observed that the contract involved manufacturing and supply of bricks and thus, fell within the definition of a "works contract" under Section 2(k) of the Gujarat Act. However, it noted that issues requiring contractual interpretation should not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction [Paras 20-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The High Court's interference under Articles 226 and 227 was unwarranted, and the arbitral process should be respected. The Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appellant to raise jurisdictional objections in the pending Section 34 proceedings. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 25-26].

Motor Vehicles Act – Hypothecation Entry and Fraudulent Documentation – The Supreme Court examined the validity of the High Court's order for the release of a vehicle based on a forged clearance certificate. The High Court failed to consider that the hypothecation entry in the original registration certificate was fraudulently removed by the original owner using a forged Form 35. The Regional Transport Officer (RTO) had cancelled the registration certificate upon discovering the forgery, rendering the subsequent transfer and registration null and void. The Court emphasized that the respondent had no right to claim the vehicle based on fraudulent documentation [Paras 1-23].

Procedural Aspects and Legal Implications – The Court detailed the procedural history, including the original owner's failure to repay the loan and the arbitration award in favor of the appellant. It highlighted the fraudulent actions taken to cancel the hypothecation entry and transfer the vehicle. The Court underscored that legal transfers and registrations must adhere to statutory requirements and cannot be based on fraudulent acts. The RTO's order, which nullified the fraudulent registration, was a crucial factor overlooked by the High Court [Paras 3-16, 20-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the release of the vehicle in favor of the appellant. The Court ordered the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sitapur to ensure the vehicle's retrieval from the respondent and its release to the appellant on appropriate terms and conditions within four weeks [Para 23].

Service Law – Appointment of Warden – The Supreme Court held that the Governing Body of the College is the authority to appoint the Warden of the College Hostel. The Court emphasized that the Principal, being the Executive head of the College, is in a position to know the members of the staff. Thus, applications for the Warden's post should be invited through the Principal, who will then make recommendations to the Governing Body. The Governing Body, taking into account the Principal's recommendations, will decide the appointment [Paras 1-36].

Governing Body's Authority – The Court noted that the Governing Body has general supervision and control over the affairs of the College and is responsible for administrative appointments, including that of the Warden. The Division Bench's directions requiring the applications to be placed before the Staff Council were deemed unnecessary, as the Staff Council is not statutorily empowered to make recommendations for the Warden's appointment [Paras 20-32, 36-41].

University Grants Commission (UGC) Letter – The Court clarified that the UGC letter dated 19.02.1987 does not confer authority on the Principal to appoint the Warden. It merely suggests that the Warden should be appointed from among the senior teachers in the College, but it does not override the administrative authority of the Governing Body [Paras 20-26].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The Supreme Court set aside the directions in paragraph 41 of the Division Bench's judgment. It affirmed that the Governing Body, with the recommendation of the Principal, should initiate the process for appointing the Warden of the College Hostel. The Court directed the Governing Body to commence the process for the appointment before the Hostel reopens [Paras 36-41].