Civil Suit – Adverse Possession – Necessity of Pleadings – First Appellate Court’s Finding Set Aside – Plaintiffs sought declaration that sale deed was bogus and for injunction—Trial court dismissed suit; first appellate court decreed suit partly by accepting plea of adverse possession, holding title matured during pendency of suit—High Court found no such plea in plaint or written statement; held appellate court erred in framing additional issue absent foundational pleading—Supreme Court reaffirmed that adverse possession must be specifically pleaded, put in issue, and proved; cannot be raised for first time in appeal as a surprise to defendant—Petition dismissed; trial court’s dismissal of suit restored [Paras 19-31].

Judicial Discipline – Directions to High Court Judge – Modification on Request of CJI – Supreme Court had earlier set aside an Allahabad High Court order and remanded matter for fresh hearing, while issuing directions restraining the concerned judge from handling criminal matters till demitting office – On written request from CJI, SC deleted paras 25 and 26 of earlier order, leaving matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court – Court reiterated that directions were issued to protect institutional dignity and public faith in judiciary, not to cast aspersions on the judge [Paras 1-8].

Institutional Integrity – Role of Supreme Court and High Courts – SC clarified it does not intend to interfere with administrative powers of High Court CJ as ‘master of the roster’ – However, in cases raising institutional concerns affecting rule of law, SC may intervene – Emphasised that High Courts must uphold rule of law, avoid perverse/unjust orders, and maintain credibility – Judges expected to discharge duties diligently and honour constitutional oath [Paras 4, 6, 9, 11-12].

Reference to Precedent – Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 512 – Noted past concern over misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes – Stressed the need to avoid recurrence of such cases [Para 10].

Decision – Special Leave Petition disposed – Paras 25 and 26 of order dated 04/08/2025 deleted – Registry to forward copy of present order to Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court [Paras 7, 13-14].

Civil Law - Port Tariff Revision – Arbitration Award and Appellate Orders Set Aside – Dispute between Paradip Port Authority and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. regarding revision of tariff for exclusive use of “fertilizer berth” under agreement dated 03.08.1985 – Arbitrator (2002) quashed unilateral tariff enhancement from October 1993 to 31.03.1999 and directed parties to approach TAMP for period from 01.04.1999 onwards – Appellate Authority (2009) and High Court (2023) upheld award – Supreme Court held Arbitrator erred by reading Clause 1 of agreement in isolation and ignoring Clause 19 subjecting respondent to port laws – Appellate Authority’s order cryptic and High Court wrongly held agreement overrides 1963 Act – Found revision of tariff from 1985 to 1999 should have been assessed by expert body (TAMP) considering cost escalations and statutory framework – Matter remitted to TAMP for determination for 1993–1999 period [Paras 19–34]

Tariff Revision for 1999–2010 – Challenge to TAMP order (22.11.2011) rejecting increase – TAMP failed to grant oral hearing despite complex factual issues and wrongly examined basis of 1985 tariff instead of considering cost escalation – Supreme Court noted principles of natural justice violated and approach misdirected – Since tariff for 1993–1999 remitted to TAMP, subsequent period (1999–2010) also remitted for fresh decision to ensure continuity of base rates [Paras 40–47]

Constitution of Appellate Authority – Court observed tariff fixation is technical and factual requiring expert appraisal – Present direct appeals from TAMP/adjudicatory board to Supreme Court under 2021 Act may not be ideal – Recommended constitution of a specialised expert appellate body before Supreme Court stage, in line with regulatory regimes under SEBI Act, TRAI Act, Competition Act, Electricity Act – Registry directed to send order to Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice for consideration [Paras 48–60]

Decision – (i) Award of Arbitrator, orders of Appellate Authority and High Court for 1993–1999 period set aside – matter remitted to TAMP [Para 61.1] – (ii) TAMP and High Court orders for 1999–2010 set aside – matter remitted to TAMP [Para 61.2] – (iii) Recommendation to constitute expert appellate body for TAMP/adjudicatory board orders [Para 61.3] – Registry to forward judgment to Legislative Department [Para 62].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Benefit of Doubt – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal -  Appellant convicted with husband under Section 302 IPC for beating victim with sticks following land dispute—Supreme Court noted contradictions between medical evidence and prosecution’s timeline, unexplained injuries on victim’s parents, admitted family enmity over partition, and improbabilities in alleged dying declaration—Body found at victim’s house despite alleged assault at temple—Only PW-7, victim’s father with strained relations, claimed to witness attack; other witnesses only saw accused fleeing—Held: Reasonable doubt exists; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted [Paras 1-11].

Medical Evidence vs. Eyewitness Testimony – Doctor opined death occurred between 10-12 p.m., inconsistent with claim that victim died before 9 p.m.—Weapon (danda) allegedly recovered from appellant not chemically examined nor linked to fatal injury—Lack of clarity on cause and time of death undermined prosecution case [Paras 2-7].

Unexplained Injuries on Witnesses – PW-7 and victim’s mother had incised wounds possibly self-inflicted; prosecution failed to explain—Supports defence of intra-family dispute and alternative narrative [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside—Appellant acquitted; to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case; bail bonds cancelled [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Service Law - In-House Procedure – Constitutional Validity – Challenge by Sitting Judge – Petition Dismissed – A sitting High Court judge filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the validity of paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the In-House Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999, contending that it violates Articles 14, 21, 124(4), and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, by enabling a fact-finding committee and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to forward recommendations on judicial misconduct directly to the President and Prime Minister – The Court held that the In-House Procedure is not unconstitutional, does not result in punitive action, and merely initiates a constitutionally permissible process without infringing on judicial independence or procedural safeguards – Petition was dismissed with observations on the need to protect judicial integrity and independence through internal mechanisms – The recommendation of the CJI is not binding on Parliament, and thus does not amount to extra-constitutional action [Paras 1, 26, 47, 55, 82, 84-86].

Judicial Conduct – Constitutionality of In-House Procedure – Articles 124 and 218 – Procedure Upheld - Petitioner, a High Court judge, challenged the In-House Procedure allowing a fact-finding Committee to recommend initiation of removal proceedings and enabling the CJI to forward such recommendation to the President and Prime Minister – Held: In-House Procedure is a legally sanctioned mechanism evolved through judicial precedent and Full Court Resolution, and does not violate the Constitution – Forwarding of recommendation by CJI to constitutional authorities does not amount to parallel or extra-constitutional process – Petition dismissed [Paras 26, 47, 55, 82].

Judicial Discipline – Internal Fact-Finding – Not Ultra Vires – Validity of Preliminary Inquiry – The internal process under the In-House Procedure is a preliminary and non-punitive mechanism aimed at preserving institutional integrity and credibility – It fills the gap between judicial misconduct not warranting immediate impeachment and the absence of disciplinary control – The process is fact-finding, not determinative of removal, and compliant with principles of natural justice [Paras 27, 40, 44-46].

Role of Chief Justice of India – Power to Recommend – Not Unconstitutional – The CJI’s action in forwarding the Committee’s report and making observations is within the scope of the Procedure and necessary for explaining withdrawal of judicial work – Such recommendation is not binding on Parliament and cannot be considered prejudicial or unconstitutional – No deviation from Procedure established [Paras 63-69].

Protection of Judges – Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Applicability Confirmed – Section 3(2) permits the Supreme Court, among other authorities, to initiate in-house inquiries under existing law – The In-House Procedure, being sanctioned through precedent and Full Court resolution, falls within the scope of “otherwise” mentioned in the Act – Hence, the Supreme Court has lawful authority to initiate such inquiries [Paras 70-83].

Public Disclosure – Confidentiality of Inquiry Reports – Uploading of Photographs/Videos – Not Justified – While procedural safeguards were generally followed, premature publication of material may affect judicial fairness and violate Article 21 rights of the petitioner – Court expressed concern, though no relief was granted on this point [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – The Supreme Court held that the Petitioner had not established that paragraphs 5(b) and 7(ii) of the In-House Procedure were ultra vires or violative of constitutional safeguards – The internal mechanism was upheld as a necessary, constitutionally compliant system to ensure judicial accountability without compromising independence [Paras 84-86].

Motor Accident Claim – Assessment of Income for Minor Victim – High Court and Tribunal Orders Modified – The appellant, an 8-year-old child, suffered 90% permanent disability due to a motor accident – Tribunal awarded Rs.3.9 lakhs, High Court enhanced to Rs.8.65 lakhs – Supreme Court held that minor victims cannot be treated as non-earning individuals – Income must be assessed at least on the basis of prevailing minimum wages for skilled workers – Compensation enhanced to Rs.35,90,489 with 9% interest – Appeal allowed [Paras 9-13, 17].

Disability Assessment – Functional Disability at 90% – Loss of Earning Capacity – Held: High Court correctly fixed permanent functional disability at 90% – Supreme Court affirmed this finding based on medical evidence and impact on future prospects [Para 11].

Compensation Principles – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages – Enhanced Compensation – Held: Courts failed to apply principles laid down in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Pranay Sethi – Supreme Court recalculated under heads including loss of income, medical expenses, future treatment, pain and suffering, amenities, loss of marriage prospects, and artificial limb cost – Total compensation fixed at Rs.35,90,489 [Paras 12-13].

Judicial Responsibility – Error by Tribunal and High Court – Need to Apply Settled Law – Held: Tribunal and High Court erred in ignoring binding precedents, forcing avoidable appeals – Directions issued that insurance companies must furnish prevailing minimum wage data in absence of proof of income – Order to be circulated to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals by High Courts [Paras 14-16, 18].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court modified award, enhancing compensation from Rs.8.65 lakhs to Rs.35.90 lakhs with 9% interest from date of claim petition – Amount to be remitted directly to claimant’s bank account by 30th September 2025 [Paras 17, 19].

Motor Accident Claim – Death of Minor – Tribunal’s award restored – Appeal by parents against High Court’s reduction of compensation from Rs.8,55,000/- to Rs.5,80,000/- – Supreme Court held that Tribunal’s assessment of Rs.5,000/- monthly income for a 10-year-old child under Section 166 MV Act was proper, no deduction for personal expenses applicable, multiplier of 15 justified, and certain heads of compensation wrongly deleted by the High Court – Order of Tribunal reinstated [Paras 5-7].

Quantum of Income – Schedule II in Section 163A vs. Section 166 – High Court erred in applying Schedule II (Rs.30,000/- p.a.) meant for ‘no-fault’ claims under Section 163A – Tribunal’s reliance on Division Bench precedent adopting Rs.5,000/- monthly income for minor upheld – No deduction for personal expenses in case of minor’s death – Multiplier of 15 correct considering mother’s age [Paras 5-6].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Filial Consortium and Funeral Expenses – As per Pranay Sethi, Rs.40,000/- each for both parents allowed – Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- maintained – High Court’s deletion of transportation expenses and loss of dress/ornaments/cycle set aside – Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- upheld – Recomputed total Rs.8,70,000/- [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Tribunal’s award of Rs.8,55,000/- restored – Amount to be paid within one month after deducting sums already deposited, with interest as directed by Tribunal/High Court [Para 7].

Criminal Law - Dowry Demand – Quashing of FIR – Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court’s Finding of “Vague and Omnibus” Allegations Set Aside – The appellants lodged FIR alleging specific dowry demands by the in-laws of the prospective bridegroom, including Rs. 10 lakh, a vehicle, and cash with articles on tilak ceremony—Marriage negotiations were later called off after refusal to meet further demands—High Court quashed FIR against the father, mother, and brother of the bridegroom holding allegations vague—Held: FIR contained specific details with dates and amounts; prima facie ingredients of offences made out—High Court erred in exercising Section 482 powers to quash—Whether allegations are true is matter for trial—Order quashing proceedings set aside; trial to proceed against all accused [Paras 8-14].

Electricity Law -  Tariff – Challenge to Regulatory Asset Practice – Supreme Court Issues Mandate for Time-Bound Liquidation – The petitioners, Delhi-based electricity distribution companies, challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s continued creation of regulatory assets without structured recovery – Supreme Court held that this violated statutory provisions under the Electricity Act and Policy directives under the National Tariff Policy – Creation of regulatory assets is permissible only in exceptional circumstances with a clear amortisation plan – Indefinite deferment impacts financial viability and transparency in tariff setting – Held: DERC’s conduct unjustified – Court issued binding directions for time-bound liquidation, prohibited further creation without strict conditions, and ordered monitoring through an independent committee [Paras 1–4, 15, 32–38, 75–80].

Tariff Determination – Regulatory Mandate of SERCs – Sections 61, 62, 64 and 86 of the Electricity Act – SERCs must determine tariffs that ensure recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable time – Held: Cost-reflective tariffs are essential for DISCOM sustainability – Failure by DERC to ensure timely recovery led to accumulation of regulatory assets and severe financial strain – Non-compliance with statutory provisions warrants judicial intervention [Paras 40–46, 49–54].

Regulatory Assets – Clause 8.2.2 of National Tariff Policy – To be Created Only in Exceptional Situations – The Policy permits regulatory assets where tariffs cannot be increased due to unavoidable reasons – Held: DERC’s prolonged and recurring creation of such assets contravened the mandate of exceptionality – Absence of a clear amortisation plan and structured recovery roadmap is illegal and unsustainable – Recovery must occur within three years as per policy [Paras 34–38, 55–61].

Maintainability – Writ Jurisdiction Despite Alternative Remedy – DERC contended that petitions were not maintainable due to alternate appellate remedies before APTEL – Held: Petitions concern persistent failure of statutory duties by a regulator with widespread consequences for public interest and power sector – Judicial review under Article 32 and 136 maintainable in such exceptional circumstances [Paras 48–49].

Consumer Interest vs. Financial Sustainability – Balancing Mandate under Electricity Act – Regulatory Commissions must balance consumer protection with financial viability of licensees – Held: While protecting tariff affordability, commissions must not allow indefinite postponement of recovery – Sustained under-recovery affects power supply reliability, investor confidence, and overall energy infrastructure [Paras 51–54, 68–70].

Regulatory Accountability – DERC’s Disregard of Directions – Despite specific orders from APTEL and the Supreme Court in earlier matters, DERC failed to implement amortisation plans or comply with mandates – Held: This constitutes systemic regulatory failure – DERC must be held accountable – Monitoring of compliance is essential to ensure transparency and discipline in future tariff processes [Paras 55–61, 68–74].

Final Directions – Supreme Court Mandates Time-bound Liquidation – DERC directed to publish and implement a phased amortisation roadmap – Tariff Orders to reflect realistic cost recovery – Creation of new regulatory assets not permitted unless strict conditions of Clause 8.2.2 are satisfied – Independent Monitoring Committee to oversee and report on progress every six months – Next tariff determination process to account for legacy gaps and recovery charges [Paras 75–80].