Family Law - Child Custody – Repetitive IA Requirement – Procedural Burden Criticized – Modified - The Family Court required the father to file fresh interlocutory applications for custody every time he visited India – Held: Such repetitive litigation imposes undue burden on non-custodial parent and child, disrupts planning, and hinders bonding – Supreme Court substituted a structured interim visitation schedule to ensure predictability and preserve parental relationship [Paras 2, 6, 15–17].

Child Welfare – Shared Parenting Principles – Interim Custody Balanced - The Court recognized the importance of regular meaningful contact with both parents – Held: Even while trial is pending, structured parenting time is essential for the child’s emotional well-being – Interim custody split during vacations and alternate weekends, with structured video interaction during the appellant’s overseas postings [Paras 16–20].

Family Court Jurisdiction – Interim Access Orders – Judicial Discretion Guided - High Court’s refusal to grant structured schedule was reversed – Held: Interim arrangements must account for practicalities of international employment and avoid repetitive litigation – Family Court may vary logistics only upon material change, but not reduce access granted [Paras 17–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Permanent Interim Visitation Framework Issued - Supreme Court replaced piecemeal interim custody system with a standing schedule – Directed equal division of vacation time (if appellant present), alternate weekends, routine video contact, and streamlined coordination procedures – Directed Family Court to adjudicate main custody case expeditiously [Paras 19–21].

Environmental Law - Reserved Forest Land – Status upheld since 1879 – Fabricated Gazette Notification exposed – Land in Survey No. 20 originally notified as Reserved Forest in 1879 remained so despite partial de-reservation in 1934 – RRCHS relied on a 1944 notification found to be forged – Held: The land retained its Reserved Forest character, and any contrary claim based on forged records is invalid [Paras 12-21].

Forest (Conservation) Act – Prior approval mandatory – Allotment without Central clearance illegal – The 1980 FC Act prohibits State authorities from de-reserving or allotting forest land without Central Government approval – High officials bypassed this requirement citing an outdated precedent – Held: Such actions were contrary to statutory mandate and Supreme Court's binding orders, rendering the allotment void ab initio [Paras 22-38].

Doctrine of Desuetude – Inapplicable to Forest Law – Forest protection laws not rendered obsolete – RRCHS argued land lost forest status due to non-use – Held: Doctrine of desuetude applies only where statutes fall into complete disuse and contrary practices prevail—Neither condition satisfied here—Forest entries actively maintained and enforced [Paras 39-47].

Bonafide Purchaser – RRCHS complicit – Deals predating allotment invalidate claim – RRCHS entered development agreements and took possession before land was even officially allotted – Held: RRCHS was not a bonafide purchaser; the Chavan Family acted as a front—All transactions violated allotment conditions and were legally impermissible [Paras 48-64].

Alternate Land Claim – Not Entitled – Distinction drawn from precedent – RRCHS sought alternate land relying on prior Supreme Court order – Held: Unlike earlier case where State illegally took over private land, here RRCHS acted illegally with full knowledge of violations—No relief can be granted for self-inflicted illegality [Paras 65-74].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Breached by State Officials – Forest land handed over for private profit – State authorities including Minister and Divisional Commissioner colluded to transfer forest land to builders under the guise of resettlement – Held: This was a grave violation of the public trust doctrine and environmental norms—Such conduct undermines constitutional duties of the State [Paras 75-91].

Nationwide Directions – Forest lands under Revenue control to be handed over – Orders issued to all States/UTs – Supreme Court mandated that all forest lands under Revenue Departments be transferred to Forest Departments – Directed recovery or restoration where lands have been illegally allotted for non-forest use [Paras 92-94].

Decision – Allotment cancelled – Environmental clearance quashed – Forest land to be restored – Appeal disposed – Held: The 11.89 ha land allotted in 1998 and later sold to RRCHS was illegally transferred—Environmental clearance issued to RRCHS is quashed—Land to be restored to Forest Department and nationwide steps for forest protection initiated [Paras 95-96].

Suo Motu - POCSO Cases – Setting Up of Exclusive Courts – Implementation of Judicial Directives – Compliance Directed - The Court directed that each district with more than 100 POCSO cases must establish exclusive courts under a Central scheme with appropriate staffing and child-friendly infrastructure – Majority of States complied but high-pendency States (UP, WB, Bihar, TN, Orissa, Maharashtra) were found lacking – Held: Union and State governments must prioritise timely establishment of such courts [Paras 1, 3, 5-6].

Forensic Delay – Effective Functioning of FSLs – Expedited Processing Ordered – Court acknowledged forensic delays as key bottleneck in trial completion – Directed State Forensic Labs to ensure swift analysis and reporting in POCSO cases – Mandated Chief Secretaries to ensure compliance [Para 1].

Child Sensitisation and Support – Appointment of Trained Support Persons and Prosecutors – Awareness Measures – Directions were issued to appoint child-sensitive support persons and prosecutors, and to run public awareness campaigns in cinemas and media with helpline information prominently displayed – Responsibility assigned to Ministry of Women and Child Development [Paras 1, 4].

Timely Trial – Adherence to Statutory Deadlines – States Reminded of Duty – Despite POCSO Act’s time-bound process for investigation and trial, delay persists due to inadequate infrastructure – States instructed to strictly follow the law and ensure completion of investigations and trials within statutory periods [Paras 2, 6].

Closure of Proceedings – Compliance Noted – Matter Concluded – Noting significant implementation of earlier directions and pending areas requiring attention, the Court closed the suo motu proceedings with appreciation for the amicus curiae and counsel – Held: Further monitoring not required at this stage [Paras 7-8].

Civil Law - Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Land Grabbing – Scope of 'Land Grabbing' and 'Land Grabber' – Interpretation of AP Land Grabbing Act – Criminal Intent Not Mandatory - Under the Act, both narrow and broad meanings of "grab" apply – While mens rea is not always required, unlawful and unauthorized possession or creation of third-party interests suffices – The Court affirmed that the statute covers even non-violent and non-criminal encroachments when done without lawful entitlement [Paras 5-7].

Land Ownership Dispute – Survey Number Mismatch – Registered Titles in Different Survey Numbers – Appellant's Claim Rejected - The appellant claimed title under Survey No. 10 while the land in possession was confirmed by the Commissioner’s report to fall under Survey No. 9 – Held: Possession was unauthorized; appellant failed to rebut the presumption of land grabbing after respondent established prima facie title [Paras 9-12].

Adverse Possession – Lack of Proof of Hostile Possession – Claim Denied - Appellant's claim of adverse possession failed due to absence of proof regarding the start and continuity of hostile possession – Respondent's prompt objection through cooperative society proceedings disproved the claim of adverse, uninterrupted possession [Paras 16].

Jurisdiction and Nature of Proceedings under the Land Grabbing Act – Special Court's Summary Powers Upheld – No Procedural Illegality - Special Court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction – Proceedings follow principles of natural justice and are based on CPC – Burden of proof shifts upon prima facie evidence by complainant – No prejudice caused to appellant due to this scheme [Paras 13-15].

Final Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Special Court and High Court Findings Affirmed - The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal – Observed that the appellant failed to rebut the evidence and presumption raised – Appeal dismissed, upholding the findings of the courts below [Paras 17-18].

Motor Accident Claim – Liability of Insurer – Duty limited to monetary compensation – High Court’s directive for lifetime support set aside – The High Court directed the insurer to provide prosthetic limbs, motorized wheelchair, travel expenses, and ensure ongoing support – Held: Insurer’s statutory role is limited to indemnifying loss in monetary terms, and not to maintain lifelong support infrastructure – Directions contrary to statutory framework and unsustainable [Paras 2-4, 6].

Compensation – Disability and Future Needs – Additional Rs.12 lakhs awarded – Expenses quantified for future wellbeing – The victim suffered 100% functional disability due to loss and impairment of both lower limbs at age 22 – Held: A prosthetic limb costing approx. Rs.2 lakhs, replaced every 5 years, and wheelchair costing Rs.40,000 require long-term provision – Court awarded Rs.12 lakhs with 6% simple interest to cover future expenses and mobility needs [Paras 5, 7-8].

Appeal by Insurer – No bar on grant of just compensation – High Court’s enhancement restructured – Though the appeal was filed by the insurer and not the claimant, the Supreme Court upheld the right to restructure compensation in monetary terms, in lieu of specific services previously directed – Held: The Court is merely converting non-monetary directions into quantified award and not increasing compensation beyond High Court’s intent [Paras 8-9].

Final Directions – High Court Order Set Aside – Award modified and appeal disposed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s directions and substituted them with quantified compensation payable within two months – Directions given to respondent to furnish account details for online transfer – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 9-12].

Civil Law - Electricity Act - Jurisdiction of CERC – Powers under Section 79 – Regulatory Order Valid – Held: CERC has dual functions of regulation and adjudication – Even in absence of regulations under Section 178, CERC is empowered to regulate tariff matters between parties under Section 79 – Grant of liberty to claim compensation falls within such regulatory scope [Paras 43-48, 60-63].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy Available – Writ Petition Improperly Admitted – The High Court entertained the writ despite availability of appellate remedy under Section 111 – No violation of natural justice, no constitutional question involved, and no lack of jurisdiction shown – Held: High Court erred in applying Whirlpool exception – Writ petition was not maintainable [Paras 64-66].

Compensation for Delay – Transmission Charges – Regulatory Function Not Adjudication – CERC’s direction to allow appellant to claim transmission charges for unutilized assets due to respondent’s delay addressed a regulatory gap – Such order was not an adjudication on liability, but regulation to fill a lacuna in the 2014 Tariff Regulations – Held: Ad hoc regulatory action permissible and valid [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order admitting the writ petitions – Clarified that respondent may raise factual challenge on merits before APTEL if it chooses to appeal – No determination on actual liability was made [Paras 65-66].

Civil Law - Commercial Suit – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act – Mandatory Nature – Rejection of plaint not justified – The suit was filed in 2019 without pre-institution mediation as mandated by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act – Relying on the prospective applicability of the Patil Automation decision, the Court held that suits filed prior to 20.08.2022 are not liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint was unjustified; the High Court rightly directed the matter for mediation [Paras 5-13, 34-38, 46-48].

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Application to Section 12A Compliance – Relief sustained – The Court affirmed that the mandate laid down in Patil Automation applies prospectively – It ruled that suits instituted prior to 20.08.2022 without pre-institution mediation cannot be dismissed solely on that ground – The rejection would otherwise result in hardship and procedural prejudice [Paras 47-48, 54].

Urgent Interim Relief – Interpretation under Section 12A Proviso – Non-Applicability in Facts – The Court clarified that the proviso to Section 12A permitting bypass of mediation only applies where urgent interim relief is sought – In the instant case, no such relief was prayed – However, since the suit was instituted before the enforcement of the mandate, rejection was not warranted [Paras 35, 42-45].

Infrastructure Deficiency – Principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia – Applied in Favour of Appellant – The Court acknowledged that mediation infrastructure was lacking at the time of suit filing – Applied equitable maxim that law does not compel a man to do the impossible – Held: Procedural lapse excused in view of institutional shortcoming [Paras 15, 18-19, 49-53].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Affirmed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to keep the suit pending and refer the matter for pre-institution mediation – Held: The approach of the High Court was proper and the appeal warranted no interference [Paras 4, 26, 55].

Accident Claim - Motor Accident Compensation – Assessment of Monthly Income – Claim of Rs.10,000 accepted – High Court’s reduction reversed – The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the deceased driver’s claimed income of Rs.10,000 per month – High Court reduced it to Rs.4,076 applying minimum wages – Held: Based on precedent in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram, even unskilled labourers earned around Rs.4,500 in 2004, making Rs.10,000 reasonable for a skilled driver in 2014 – Tribunal’s assessment restored [Paras 3-4].

Future Prospects – 40% Addition – Compensation Properly Calculated – No Interference – The Tribunal rightly added 40% of monthly income towards future prospects – High Court erred in excluding it while calculating reduced compensation – Held: The calculation by the Tribunal aligns with prevailing law and requires no interference [Paras 2-4].

Loss of Consortium – Entitlement of Family Members – Retained Despite No Cross Appeal – Tribunal granted consortium to wife, children, and parents – Held: As per New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati, all dependents are entitled to consortium – Supreme Court retained the same though no appeal was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement [Paras 4-5].

Restoration of Tribunal’s Award – High Court Order Set Aside – Tribunal’s compensation confirmed – Appeal Allowed – Held: There was no justification for the High Court’s downward revision of compensation – Tribunal’s award reinstated in full, to be disbursed within two months and apportioned equally among legal heirs – In case of minors, amount to be held in fixed deposit [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Tribunal’s Compensation Restored – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court restored the full compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, setting aside the reduced award passed by the High Court – Compensation to be distributed as per Tribunal’s direction [Paras 5-6].

Civil Law - Temple Receivership – Widespread Judicial Appointments – Chronic Litigation – Reformed - Supreme Court found long-standing misuse of receivership across 197 temples in Mathura where most receivers were advocates – Held: Such appointments led to indefinite litigation, stalling temple administration and violating public trust – Courts must avoid routine receivership and expedite dispute resolution to restore autonomy to temple trusts [Paras 4.10, 6, 22–26, 31–33].

Receiver Appointment – Advocates Not Absolutely Barred – Statutory Discretion Retained - Court acknowledged that Order XL CPC does not prohibit advocate appointment as receivers – However, courts must exercise discretion judiciously – Held: Only persons with religious knowledge, devotion, and administrative capacity, especially from the Vaishnav Sampradaya, should be considered for receiver roles in sacred temples – Blanket appointment of advocates deprecated [Paras 9.3, 21–22, 29, 31, 33].

Article 14 Challenge – Advocates’ Exclusion Not Discriminatory – Petition Dismissed - Appellant’s argument that excluding advocates violated Article 14 was rejected – Held: Classification was reasonable given spiritual, cultural, and practical requirements of temple administration – Religious competence is a valid criterion under the Constitution’s secular structure [Paras 9.4, 22–24].

Braj Region Temple Crisis – Structural Reforms Mandated – Systemic Clean-Up Ordered - Found that litigation over temple control dated back to 1923, and no final adjudication occurred in hundreds of cases – Directed trial courts to cease using receivers as a substitute for adjudication – Held: Courts must now consider spiritual competence and local customs before appointing receivers [Paras 4.10, 23–24, 28–29, 31–33].

Banke Bihari Temple Corridor – State’s Development Scheme Approved – Fund Use Permitted - Supreme Court allowed State of Uttar Pradesh to use temple funds to purchase 5 acres of land around Banke Bihari Temple for crowd management – Directed that acquired land must remain in the name of the Deity – High Court order modified under Article 142 – Upheld need for collaborative public-private development model in Braj region [Paras 11.6–11.9, 20, 24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Upheld – Future Receiver Appointments Regulated - Held: The order setting aside the Seven Member Receiver Committee was correct – Trial Court must now appoint a receiver with spiritual and administrative alignment, preferably from Vaishnav Sampradaya – Temple reform directions binding on lower courts – Appeal and all IAs disposed [Paras 24–25].