Environmental Law – Conservation of Aravali Hills – Need for uniform definition – Aravali Hills and Ranges spanning four states held ecologically vital for biodiversity, desertification prevention, and climate resilience – Dispute arose over differing definitions by states – Court accepted Committee’s recommendation using elevation-based criteria (100m) for defining Aravalis – Court directed preparation of geo-ecological Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) across Aravali districts, similar to Saranda study, before any new leases – No mining to be permitted in core/inviolate zones including tiger reserves, Ramsar sites, aquifer zones, and ESZs [Paras 1-5, 29-30, 38, 50].

Mining Regulation – Sustainable Mining – Ongoing mining to continue strictly per Committee’s safeguards – New leases to be withheld till MPSM is finalized – Recommendations for expert monitoring, reclamation of abandoned mines, prohibition in ecologically sensitive areas, and restriction on explosive use accepted – Illegal mining flagged; ILMS system to be implemented for real-time oversight [Paras 7-9, 18, 38, 49-50].

Judicial Oversight – Role of Amicus Curiae – Special Bench constituted to harmonize issues from M.C. Mehta and Godavarman cases – Court recognized and recorded appreciation for Amicus and legal team for their sustained contribution to ecological jurisprudence [Paras 20, 51].

Decision:

Committee Report – Definition of Aravalis – Accepted – The Court accepted the operational definition of Aravali Hills and Ranges as recommended by the Committee constituted by the MoEF&CC, based on elevation from local relief – Court held that this uniform definition will guide mining regulation across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat [Para 50(i)].

Mining in Core/Inviolate Areas – Prohibition Upheld – Mining in designated core/inviolate zones (including protected areas, tiger reserves, Ramsar sites, aquifer zones, areas with government plantations) shall remain prohibited – Exceptions allowed only for critical, strategic, and atomic minerals as per MMDR Act [Para 50(ii)].

Sustainable Mining – Conditional Approval – Recommendations for regulated sustainable mining accepted – Existing legal mining operations allowed to continue with strict compliance of safeguards outlined in Committee Report (Para 8) – No new leases to be granted until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is prepared [Paras 50(iii), 50(v), 50(vii)].

Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) – Mandatory – Directed MoEF&CC to prepare MPSM for entire Aravali range through ICFRE – Plan to identify zones for mining, conservation, ecological thresholds, and post-mining restoration measures – Only after MPSM finalization can new mining activities be permitted [Para 50(iv)-(vi)].

Ban on New Mining Leases – Interim Restriction – No new mining leases to be granted in Aravalis until MPSM is finalized – Ensures scientific, ecologically sensitive and uniform mining policy across the region [Para 50(v)].

Complete Ban Refused – Blanket prohibition on all mining rejected – Court held total bans may incentivize illegal mining and lead to criminalisation of resource extraction – Maintained that legal mining with proper safeguards should continue [Paras 47-48].

Motor Vehicles Law – Cashless Treatment Scheme – Section 162(1) MV Act – The Court considered the plea for a cashless treatment scheme for road accident victims during the "Golden Hour" – Held: The Justice A.M. Sapre Committee is requested to deliberate on the reliefs sought regarding cashless treatment, reimbursement of post-discharge expenses, and integration with the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) to ensure immediate medical care. [Paras 4-5].

Road Safety – Electronic Monitoring and Enforcement – Section 136A MV Act – Implementation of Swift Response Protocols – Context of high fatality rates on highways – Held: States and Union Territories must work on developing Swift Response Protocols to ensure immediate help reaches accident victims. NHAI directed to file an affidavit regarding the implementation of electronic monitoring and patrolling protocols. [Paras 11(2)-11(3)].

Constitutional Law – Repugnancy and Abatement of Trials – Article 254(2) Constitution of India – Validity of UP Act No. 4 of 2023 – Context where the State of UP enacted a law abating trials for MV Act offences pending on 31.12.2021 – Held: The abatement of proceedings for offences like Drunken Driving (Section 185 MV Act) removes deterrence and may be arbitrary. The Court expressed serious concern over the blanket abatement of trials for non-compoundable offences, noting that such legislative action might violate Article 14 by creating disparity between those who paid fines and those who did not. The State of UP is directed to file an affidavit justifying section-wise abatement. [Paras 9, 15-25].

Motor Vehicles Law – Drunken Driving – Section 185 MV Act – Impact of Abatement – Held: Section 185 is a non-compoundable offence intended to deter dangerous driving. Abating such trials merely due to pendency undermines road safety and allows offenders to go scot-free. The argument that offenders could be charged under IPC does not justify the abatement of the special statute offences. [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Directions issued to the Justice Sapre Committee to examine the cashless treatment scheme; NHAI and States directed to implement safety protocols; State of UP directed to justify the abatement of MV Act trials. List on 22.01.2026.

Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Act – Priority of Secured Creditor – Section 26E of SARFAESI Act grants statutory priority to debts owed to secured creditors post registration – However, this statutory priority does not override a statutory “first charge” under a welfare statute such as EPF&MP Act – Held: While bank’s secured dues get priority over ordinary debts, they remain subordinate to EPF dues which enjoy statutory first charge under Section 11(2) of the EPF Act [Paras 15, 22-27].

Provident Fund Dues – Statutory First Charge – Section 11(2) of EPF&MP Act creates an overriding statutory first charge on employer’s assets for PF dues including contributions, interest, damages – Court holds such first charge prevails over SARFAESI’s Section 26E priority – Welfare legislation like EPF Act must be purposively interpreted in line with Directive Principles [Paras 14, 17, 23, 26-27].

Workmen’s Dues – No Priority in Absence of Quantification – Unpaid wages of workers, not having statutory first charge and not yet quantified, cannot take precedence over registered security interest of the bank – Bank permitted to sell secured assets; only surplus (after EPF and bank dues) can be made available for workmen’s claims [Paras 28-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonisation of Welfare and Recovery Laws – Though both SARFAESI and EPF Acts contain non-obstante clauses, when one creates a statutory first charge (EPF), it prevails over mere statutory priority (SARFAESI) – SARFAESI being later statute does not override first charge unless expressly stated [Paras 25-27].

Decision:

Priority of Dues – Resolved – Appeals allowed in part – Directions in impugned Bombay High Court judgment modified – Held: Appellant-bank entitled to proceed with auction of secured assets – Sale proceeds must first satisfy statutory dues under EPF&MP Act (including contributions, interest, damages), and only thereafter applied to recover bank’s secured debt [Paras 28-30].

Workmen’s Claims – Not Extinguished – Workers allowed liberty to approach appropriate authority under MRTU & PULP Act to quantify dues – Such quantified dues can be considered only if surplus remains after satisfying EPF and bank claims – Delay in filing such claims not to operate as bar [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Prosecution – Abuse of Process – Arms Licence Scam Allegation – Appellant, an IAS officer and District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Saharsa, accused of issuing arms licences without due verification – Chargesheet filed after 15 years of FIR, despite earlier closure report finding allegations against him to be false – Sanction under Section 197 CrPC held to be non-speaking and mechanical – Held: Prosecution is liable to be quashed due to inordinate delay, lack of fresh evidence, improper sanction, and violation of Article 21 (right to speedy trial) [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Exoneration – Appellant had been subjected to departmental enquiry for irregularities in issuance of arms licences – Explanation submitted by appellant was accepted and departmental proceedings were closed in 2016 – Held: Discharge from departmental proceedings assumes relevance when criminal prosecution is based on the same facts and there is absence of any act of corruption or criminal conspiracy [Paras 5, 8, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Section 197 CrPC – Sanction for Prosecution – Sanction granted to prosecute appellant was vague, lacking application of mind, and failed to evaluate material evidence – Mere reproduction of statutory language is not sufficient – Held: Sanction must reflect objective consideration of facts and evidence; failure to do so renders sanction order invalid, thereby vitiating cognizance – All consequential actions including chargesheet and cognizance quashed [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Investigation – Right to Speedy Trial – Delay of 11 years between permission for further investigation and filing of supplementary chargesheet – No explanation offered for such delay – Appellant kept under cloud of criminal prosecution despite earlier closure of case – Held: Delay in investigation constitutes violation of right under Article 21; investigation cannot continue endlessly without justification – Chargesheet and prosecution quashed on this ground as well [Paras 13, 14, 19].

Arms Act – Discretion under Section 13(2A) – Appellant relied on discretionary power to issue licences without police verification if report is not received in time – However, in one instance, licence was issued within 2 days of calling for report – Held: Though such discretion exists, it must be exercised reasonably; one unjustified instance not sufficient for prosecution when other licences not similarly scrutinised and departmental authorities have already accepted explanation [Paras 7, 8, 9, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Supplementary Chargesheet – Further Investigation – Leave granted under Section 173(8) CrPC implies ongoing judicial stewardship – Held: Courts not functus officio after granting such leave – They are duty-bound to ensure investigation proceeds fairly and reasonably – Inordinate delay must be accounted for and explained [Para 21(i)].

Judicial Directions – Delay in Investigation and Sanction – Courts directed to: (i) Ensure investigating agencies explain prolonged delays when highlighted by accused; (ii) Recognise that unreasonable investigation delays can vitiate prosecution; (iii) Ensure sanctioning authorities apply mind to material evidence; (iv) Allow accused or complainant to seek updates or quashing in cases of prolonged or unjustified investigation [Para 21(ii)–(iv)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance order and prosecution quashed – Appellant discharged from all criminal proceedings – Pending applications disposed of [Para 20].

Arbitration – Execution of Award – Objections by Legal Representatives – Arbitral award dated 12.07.2010 passed in favour of appellant was sought to be executed in Bombay against the father’s estate – Legal representatives (uncle and others) challenged execution by asserting non-party status and independent rights in the property – Held: Since the execution was sought against them as executors under the Will, they are not third parties but legal representatives – They are entitled to notice under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC and may raise objections under Rule 23(2) [Paras 14-18].

Civil Procedure – Order 21 Rule 22 CPC – Mandatory Notice – Execution against legal representatives cannot proceed without notice – Use of “shall” in Rule 22 is mandatory and incorporates principles of natural justice – Any step taken without such notice would be without jurisdiction [Paras 14-15].

Letters Patent Appeals – Maintainability – Held: Orders passed in execution proceedings of an arbitral award trace their source to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a complete code – Hence, no appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent – Orders of Division Bench admitting and staying Single Judge’s orders are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside [Paras 19, 22].

Execution Proceedings – Premature Observations – Single Judge made findings that arbitral award is not fraudulent, not against public policy etc., while deciding chamber summons – Supreme Court held such observations, though not determinative, may prejudice legal representatives’ right to raise objections once notice under Rule 22 is served – Execution must proceed only after issuing statutory notice [Paras 20-21].

Decision:

Letters Patent Appeals – Held Not Maintainable – Orders dated 06.03.2018 passed by Division Bench of Bombay High Court in LPAs 320 & 372 of 2015 set aside – Appeals dismissed as not maintainable as orders challenged arose from execution proceedings under Arbitration Act which bars such appeals [Para 22].

Execution Direction – Restored to Statutory Track – Supreme Court directed learned Single Judge to issue notice under Order 21 Rule 22(1) CPC to respondents – On receipt, respondents may raise objections under Rule 23(2) CPC – Such objections to be decided independently and uninfluenced by previous Single Judge’s observations in chamber summons orders [Para 22(i)-(iii)].

Constitutional Law – Governor’s Discretion under Article 200 – Scope and Limits – Not Justiciable – Court may issue Mandamus in case of prolonged inaction – Held: The Governor has three options under Article 200 – to assent, to reserve the Bill for the President, or to withhold assent and return the Bill with comments (only if it is not a Money Bill) – The first proviso to Article 200 restricts rather than expands these options – The Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising discretion under Article 200 – While the Governor’s actions are generally not justiciable, prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite inaction can justify a limited mandamus from the Court to require discharge of function within a reasonable time – Article 361 does not bar judicial review of inaction by the Governor, although the Governor personally is immune from judicial proceedings [Paras 165.1 to 165.4].

President’s Role under Article 201 – Not Justiciable – Subjective Satisfaction – No Deemed Assent – Held: The President’s discretion under Article 201, like the Governor’s under Article 200, is not subject to judicial review – No judicially prescribed timelines can be imposed for the President’s assent – The President need not seek a reference from the Court under Article 143 every time a Bill is reserved – Subjective satisfaction is sufficient – The Constitution does not permit the concept of ‘deemed assent’ under Article 142 or otherwise – Article 142 cannot substitute constitutional procedures regarding assent [Paras 165.6 to 165.10].

Judicial Review – Limits under Article 361 – Governor’s Office Subject to Mandamus – No Review of Bill’s Content Before Law – Held: Article 361 protects the Governor personally but not the office from judicial scrutiny in extreme cases of inaction – The Court cannot adjudicate the contents of a Bill prior to it becoming law – Court’s opinion under Article 143 is not ‘judicial adjudication’ – Clarified that no constitutional authority can supplant the Governor’s role under Article 200 – There is no scope for automatic enactment of a Bill without formal assent [Paras 165.4, 165.9, 165.11].

Articles 145(3), 142, and 131 – No Opinion Rendered – Questions Outside Functional Scope of Reference – Held: Question 12 (regarding composition of Benches under Article 145(3)) and Question 14 (regarding jurisdiction under Article 131) were found irrelevant and returned unanswered – Question 13 (scope of Article 142) was found overly broad and addressed only in context of deemed assent [Paras 165.12 to 165.14].

Decision: Opinion tendered under Article 143 – Clarified constitutional boundaries for assent, reservation, and withholding of Bills by the Governor and President – Certain questions returned unanswered as irrelevant to the reference.

Land Acquisition – Compensation Agreement – Interest – The parties entered into a negotiated agreement under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act fixing compensation for acquired land – High Court, while recognising the finality of the agreement, erroneously granted interest under Section 12 from the date of acquisition notice – Held: Once compensation is fixed through agreement, statutory provisions like Section 12 are excluded – Statutory interest cannot be claimed post-agreement [Paras 5–8, 21–22].

Contract Law – Concluded Agreements – Estoppel – Landowners having voluntarily agreed to compensation and accepted payments without protest are estopped from later invoking statutory rights inconsistent with the contract – Held: Doctrine of approbate and reprobate applies – A party cannot accept benefits under a contract and later challenge its terms [Paras 13, 23–24].

Writ Jurisdiction – Contractual Matters – The High Court erred in invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to rewrite terms of a voluntarily concluded contract – Held: Power under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be used to override settled contractual terms [Para 24].

Precedents – Finality of Consent Awards – Relying on previous decisions, including Ranveer Singh, NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar, and others – Supreme Court held that a consent award or agreement extinguishes rights under the Act unless expressly reserved – Acceptance without protest bars further claims for interest or enhanced compensation [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment to the extent of awarding interest under Section 12 is set aside – Held that no interest is payable where compensation was fixed by consent – No order as to costs.

Constitutional Law – Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 – Validity – Reenactment of Struck Down Provisions – Challenge to Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 on grounds of violating judicial directions issued in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) – Court found that impugned provisions in the 2021 Act merely replicated those in the 2021 Ordinance which had already been struck down – Age bar of 50 years, truncated tenure of 4 years, requirement of two-name panel for selection, and equivalence with civil servants in terms of HRA and status – All these were held to undermine judicial independence and violate Articles 14 and 50 – Held: Legislature cannot nullify binding judgments without curing the defects – Repetition of invalidated law amounts to legislative override and violates constitutional supremacy [Paras 87, 90, 93, 103, 104, 116, 124, 126, 132, 140, 141, 142].

Separation of Powers – Judicial Independence – Legislative Encroachment – Court reiterates that separation of powers and judicial independence are part of the basic structure – Parliament’s attempt to reintroduce invalidated provisions by non obstante clauses struck down – Repeated re-enactment of unconstitutional provisions criticised – Judicial scrutiny into structure and functioning of tribunals warranted heightened review – Held: The legislature cannot repackage the same unconstitutional provisions under a new label to bypass court rulings – Doing so is a direct intrusion into the judicial sphere [Paras 89, 94, 124-128, 134, 141-142].

Constitutional Supremacy – Parliament cannot neutralise binding judicial directions issued under Articles 141 and 142 by mere re-enactment – Legislature may cure defects but cannot resurrect invalidated provisions without addressing constitutional infirmities – Directions in MBA (IV) were mandamus, not advisory; contrary statutory provisions void [Paras 84, 110-120, 135-142].

Minimum Age Requirement – Section 3: Bar on appointment below 50 years arbitrary – Discriminatory & violative of Article 14 – Contrary to MBA (IV) which restored 10 years’ practice rule for advocates – Excludes capable candidates and frustrates tribunal independence – Struck down [Paras 72, 84, 96-103].

Tenure – Section 5: Four-year term with maximum ages 70 (Chairperson) and 67 (Members) unconstitutional – Earlier judgments mandated minimum five-year tenure to ensure independence – Legislature cannot reintroduce invalid tenure model – Struck down [Paras 39-40, 68, 90-91].

Appointments – SCSC – Section 3(7): Requirement of recommending panel of two names per post invalid – Reintroduces provision struck down in MBA (IV) – Judicial primacy required – SCSC must recommend one name + one waiting list candidate only [Paras 35-36, 87-89].

Executive Delay – Provision allowing the Government to act “preferably within three months” on SCSC recommendations unconstitutional – Causes vacancies, undermines rule of law and access to justice [Paras 61, 75, 89].

Service Conditions – Sections 7 & provisos: Executive equivalence of allowances with civil servants contrary to judicial directions – Attempts to reverse MBA (IV)’s HRA directions impermissible – Second and third provisos struck down [Para 85].

Housing Allowance – Enhancement of HRA as directed in MBA (IV) upheld – Legislature cannot reduce by amendment – Judicial independence requires dignified conditions of service [Paras 70, 86].

Removal & Administrative Control – Excessive executive power over tenure, allowances, removals & rule-making violates independence of tribunals – Subordinate legislation cannot override judicial safeguards [Paras 33, 64-67, 110-120].

Reference to Larger Bench – Request rejected – No new substantial constitutional question; settled by long line of judgments from Sampath Kumar to MBA (V) – Belated request; reference would delay justice [Paras 105-109].

Validity of Impugned Act – Entire scheme of Section 184 as amended by 2021 Ordinance and the Tribunal Reforms Act held unconstitutional where it re-enacts struck-down provisions; valid only to extent conforming with MBA (IV)/MBA (V) [Paras 116-142].

Protection of Incumbent Members – Tenure of those appointed under earlier Acts & Rules protected – Appointments made prior to enforcement of the 2021 Act continue under old regime – Members appointed before commencement but notified later protected [Paras 129-138, 147-155].

National Tribunals Commission – Union directed to constitute NTC within four months – Will supervise appointments, administration & discipline of tribunals – Until then, Ministry of Finance to maintain independent Tribunals Wing [Paras 78-79, 152-153].

Final Directions – Impugned Act and offending amendments struck down – Appointments, tenure, salary, allowances, qualifications, reappointment & service conditions to be governed by MBA (IV) and MBA (V) until Parliament enacts valid legislation consistent with constitutional mandates [Paras 142, 151, 153].

Registration Act – Assignment of decree – Specific performance – Nature of decree – No interest in immovable property created – Decree only confers a right to seek sale deed execution – Assignment of such decree does not fall under Section 17(1)(e) – Registration not compulsory – Contrary view in K. Bhaskaram overruled – Held: Assignment deed of decree for specific performance does not require registration [Paras 18, 21–22, 26–28, 31–34].

Specific Relief – Assignment of Decree for Specific Performance – Requirement of Registration – Decree for specific performance does not create or assign any interest in immovable property – Assignment of such a decree does not require registration – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Held: Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act not applicable to assignment of such a decree [Paras 2, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 34].

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Order 21 Rule 16 CPC – Assignment of Decree – Assignment of decree in writing permitted – Assignee entitled to execute the decree as if he were the original decree-holder – No challenge raised regarding notice under Order 21 Rule 16 – Held: Assignment deed (Ex. B1) valid and enforceable – Registration not required [Paras 28, 29].

Property Law – Contract for Sale vs. Sale – Transfer of Property Act – Agreement for sale or decree for specific performance does not create any title or interest – Ownership passes only upon execution and registration of sale deed – Mere decree for specific performance does not confer ownership [Paras 20, 21, 22, 31].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(e) – Scope and Applicability – Only applies if decree or order itself creates or declares rights, title or interest in immovable property – A decree for specific performance does not do so – Assignment of such decree is not compulsorily registrable [Paras 25, 26, 27, 30].

Legal Nature of Decree for Specific Performance – Decree does not extinguish the contract – Court retains control post-decree – Relief is equitable and does not automatically confer ownership – Execution required to complete sale [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24].

Case Law Referred – Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal – Suraj Lamp & Industries – Hungerford Investment Trust – Amol v. Deorao – Held: Passing of decree does not vest title – Registration not needed for assigning decree for specific performance [Paras 17, 21, 24, 27].

Incorrect Law Declared – K. Bhaskaram v. Mohammad Moulana – Held: Does not lay down the correct position in law regarding requirement of registration for assignment of decree for specific performance [Para 33].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree-holder validly assigned decree to Respondent No.1 – Assignment deed not compulsorily registrable – High Court judgment allowing execution rightly passed – No costs imposed [Paras 34, 35].