Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance – Hostile Complainant – Creditworthy Portion of Deposition – Accused was Taluk Supply Officer (TSO) who repeatedly refused to countersign the 'Abstract' of ration card register maintained by the complainant (Authorised Ration Dealer) and demanded Rs.500/- as bribe – Trap was laid; marked note recovered from shirt pocket of the accused; left hand of accused tested positive – Trial court convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with concurrent sentences of two years and fine – High Court acquitted, finding that PW1 turned hostile and demand was not established, the independent witness who accompanied complainant into the cabin was not examined, and there was no proof of any offer by the bribe-giver – Held: High Court erred – The complaint made before the Vigilance Officer, the statements therein affirmed by PW1 before independent witnesses, and the corroboration by PW2 (independent witness) and PW17 (trap officer) are sufficient to establish the demand – Acceptance of the marked note is established and admitted; the false explanation offered by the accused is a further compelling circumstance of guilt – Order of trial court restored [Paras 9–18].

Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Hostile Witness – Creditworthy Evidence Not to be Discarded in Toto – PW1 prevaricated in cross-examination by affirming every suggestion of the defence, including denial of demand – Held: Evidence of a hostile witness cannot as a matter of law be washed off the record – Court must scrutinise the deposition and act upon the creditworthy portion – PW1 affirmed before Court that the complaint (Ext.P1) recording the demand was read over and confirmed as truthful by him before the independent witnesses – This portion of his evidence, fully corroborated by PW2 and PW17, establishes the demand despite his prevarication – The evasive and inconsistent answers do not efface the creditworthy admissions already made – Ratio of Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (as approved in Neeraj Dutta) followed [Paras 12–15, 17].

Prevention of Corruption – Section 7 – Ingredients – Demand Sine Qua Non – Per Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Constitution Bench), proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue is a sine qua non to establish guilt under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) – An offence under Section 7 is also made out if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without a prior demand, provided acceptance is proved, enabling the presumption under Section 20 – In the present case, demand is established from the creditworthy portion of PW1's evidence corroborated by PW2 and PW17; the question of offer therefore does not arise – Distinction drawn from Jayaraj B. v. State of Andhra Pradesh where the complainant had completely disowned the complaint, which is not the position here [Paras 9–11].

Prevention of Corruption – False Explanation – Admission of Acceptance – Compelling Circumstance of Guilt – Accused admitted receipt of the marked Rs.500/- note but offered inconsistent explanations: in cross-examination of PW1 the suggestion was that the amount was a loan repayment through one Swayam Prakash (PW8); under Section 313 the accused stated PW1 had entrusted the money for handing over to Swayam Prakash – PW8 (Swayam Prakash) turned hostile and stated he had borrowed money from PW1, not the other way around – Held: An accused is entitled to take inconsistent stances in defence, however where the suggestion and explanation are contrary and the subject of the alleged loan is spoken otherwise, the false explanation is a compelling circumstance pointing to guilt [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of acquittal passed by the High Court set aside – Order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court restored – Sentence of two years imprisonment concurrent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) with fine of Rs.10,000 and default sentence under each provision upheld as the minimum statutory sentence – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Air Force – Dismissal from Service – Administrative Action After Discharge by Criminal Court – Impermissibility – Appellant, commissioned as Pilot Officer in 1972, was posted as Senior Operations Officer – On the night of 29.03.1987, pursuant to instructions of his superior Wing Commander, he removed a GREF driver from the camp and left him at a secluded location; mortal remains of the driver were recovered on 02.04.1987 – Sessions Court discharged the appellant on 12.01.1990 finding no prima facie case and absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Thereafter, administrative action was initiated on 30.10.1990 under Section 19 of the AF Act read with Rule 16 of the AF Rules – Appellant was dismissed from service on 22.09.1993 – Held: Where the Air Force elects to have the alleged offence tried by a criminal court under Section 124 of the AF Act, it cannot thereafter fall back on either a court martial or any disciplinary action – Once the road is chosen, the traveller must walk it to the end – Initiation of administrative proceedings for disciplinary action against the appellant was bad in law and non-est [Paras 24–28].

Service Law – Discharge vs. Acquittal – Discharge Stands on Higher Pedestal – The authority initiating action reasoned that since the appellant was merely "discharged" and neither acquitted nor convicted, administrative proceedings could still be initiated – Held: This understanding is fallacious – Discharge is a pre-trial termination of proceedings for lack of sufficient material to even frame charges; acquittal is a post-trial outcome – An accused discharged of a criminal offence stands on a better footing than an accused finally acquitted after a full-fledged trial – Once an accused is discharged, he is entitled to all benefits available to an acquitted person and cannot be placed in a less advantageous position – Ratio of Harjeet Singh Sandhu applies equally to cases of discharge [Paras 18–19, 26].

Service Law – Limitation – Section 121 of AF Act – Applicability to Administrative Action – The Single Judge held that administrative dismissal was barred by the three-year limitation under Section 121 of the AF Act – Division Bench reversed, relying on Harjeet Singh Sandhu, holding that Section 121 governs trial by court-martial and not administrative action under Rule 16 – Held: The Division Bench was correct on this point – Section 121 prescribes limitation only for commencement of court-martial and does not extend to administrative action – However, administrative action was independently impermissible for other reasons [Paras 3, 22].

Natural Justice – Disciplinary Proceedings – Absence of Regular Inquiry – Cryptic Rejection of Defence – Proceeding note dated 05.06.1992 recorded only "morally convincing evidence" against the appellant without any discussion on the merits or consideration of the specific contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice – Held: Such an expression is vague and indeterminate and falls far short of the standard required in disciplinary proceedings – Where no regular inquiry is conducted and the delinquent is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the show cause notice, reply thereto and final order assume critical importance as the primary safeguards of natural justice – A cryptic or mechanical rejection that does not advert to specific contentions raised falls foul of natural justice and renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 31–33].

Service Law – Punishment – Arbitrariness – Disparity Between Superior and Subordinate – Appellant was dismissed from service while the Wing Commander, who gave the direct order to remove the driver and later instructed suppression of truth, was awarded only "severe displeasure for 3 years" – Appellant acted pursuant to orders of his superior and there was no material to suggest any motive to harm the driver – Queries were repeatedly raised within the Government as to the rationale of the disparity but no satisfactory answer was forthcoming – The Wing Commander's lenient treatment was justified only by his superannuation – Held: When a comparatively less penalty is imposed upon an officer with a more significant role, such disparity ought to weigh with authorities while determining punishment of the subordinate – The principle of equality is violated when a subordinate officer is meted the harshest punishment for complying with a wrongful order of his superior while the latter who issued it receives lenient treatment – Ratio of Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab applies [Paras 35–37].

Relief – Back Wages – 50% Award – Notional Promotion – Pensionary Benefits – Appellant having crossed the age of superannuation, reinstatement not possible – Held: Entitled to (i) arrears of salary and allowances to the extent of 50% from 23.09.1993 till scheduled date of retirement, as no material on record shows appellant did not take up any employment after dismissal; (ii) notional promotion, case to be placed before Review Departmental Promotion Committee; (iii) pensionary benefits admissible in law – Financial benefits to carry interest at 9% p.a. from date of filing of writ petition before High Court till date of payment – Appellant to be "signed off" in the normal manner on a date fixed by Chief of Air Staff, so as to restore his honour [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order of Division Bench of Delhi High Court set aside – Order of dismissal from service dated 22.09.1993 set aside – Directions issued for payment of 50% back wages with 9% interest, consideration for notional promotion, grant of pensionary benefits, and formal signing off – Compliance directed within 3 months from date of service of judgment – Parties to bear their own costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Sentence – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – Perverse Reduction of Fine – Respondent-accused issued two cheques for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively, both of which were dishonoured – Trial Court, upon recording conviction, sentenced the respondent to two years' imprisonment with fine of double the cheque amounts – Appellate Court upheld conviction and sentence – High Court in revision, mistakenly assuming it was exercising appellate power, interfered with the quantum of fine on the ground that no reason was given by the Trial Court for imposing double the cheque amount as fine – High Court modified sentence to restrict fine to the cheque amount alone and set aside the term of imprisonment entirely, without awarding any interest – Held: The High Court's order is wholly perverse and manifestly erroneous; letting off a convicted accused by merely directing payment of the cheque amount — that too after ten years of dishonour and without any interest — results in the respondent suffering no penalty whatsoever for a proved offence; such exercise of revisional jurisdiction is indefensible and liable to be set aside [Paras 6–8, 12].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Settlement – Undertaking to Pay – Time Granted – The respondent, through his counsel, proposed to pay Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty-five lakhs) towards full and final settlement of dues to the appellant by 31.08.2026 – Appellant's counsel agreed to accept the same with reluctance – Held: Recording the specific undertaking given by the respondent, time granted till 31.08.2026 to make payment; in the event of default, the appellant shall be at liberty to apply for revival of the appeals whereupon the Court may consider sending the respondent to prison straight away [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dated 27.01.2025 set aside as wholly perverse and manifestly erroneous – Respondent directed to pay Rs.45,00,000/- to the appellant by 31.08.2026 – Liberty to apply for revival of appeals in case of default – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Scope of Inherent Jurisdiction – NRI plot purchasers alleged that accused persons created forged GPAs, executed fraudulent sale deeds and confirmation deeds in respect of Survey No. 12, Doddagubbi Village, Bengaluru, thereby depriving them of their lawfully owned plots through a premeditated conspiracy – Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – High Court quashed proceedings holding dispute to be civil in nature and that registered sale deeds must first be cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 before criminal proceedings could be sustained – Held: High Court transgressed well-settled boundaries governing exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC – Impugned judgment set aside – FIRs and proceedings revived and restored [Paras 4, 23–25, 51–58].

Section 156(3) CrPC – Magistrate's Order Directing Investigation – Scope and Standard – At the stage of directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate is required only to prima facie satisfy itself that the complaint discloses cognizable offences warranting investigation – The Magistrate is not expected to exhaustively evaluate evidence or adjudicate the merits of allegations – High Court's interference with such an order at the threshold, particularly when allegations of fraud, forgery and criminal conspiracy affecting a large group of NRI purchasers were made, was wholly unjustified [Para 52].

Section 482 CrPC – Mini-Trial Impermissible at Threshold Stage – High Court examined defence documents including sale deeds executed in favour of accused-respondents and treated them as determinative of the dispute – Such consideration of defence material involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact falling within the domain of investigation and trial – Any weighing of defence material at the threshold stage amounts to conducting a mini-trial and is wholly impermissible – Criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled except where the complaint ex facie discloses no cognizable offence or continuation would be an abuse of process [Paras 53–55].

Civil and Criminal Remedies – Parallel Proceedings Permissible – Mere existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence – Initiation of civil proceedings for cancellation of sale deeds under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is not a sine qua non for launching criminal prosecution – Civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously even where allegations are identical [Para 56].

Parity of Reasoning – Coordinate Judgment Already Set Aside – High Court had passed a substantially identical judgment on 25th October, 2016 quashing proceedings against developer-Joseph Chacko on the same line of reasoning – That judgment was set aside by this Court on 28th November, 2024 – The impugned judgment in the present appeals rests on the same foundational premise – Existence of rival narratives attributing culpability to different sets of accused in respect of the same transactions underscores necessity of proper investigation rather than furnishing a ground to discard complaints at the threshold [Paras 47–51].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Common impugned judgment and order dated 28th September, 2016 of the High Court of Karnataka set aside – FIRs and proceedings arising therefrom revived and restored to the file of the concerned Police Station and/or Magistrate for being proceeded in accordance with law – All contentions of parties left open – Observations confined to present appeals and not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits [Paras 57–61].

Criminal Law – Bail – Suspension of Sentence – Split Chargesheet – Overlapping Allegations – Appellant, a former Minister convicted in R.C. Case No. 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) under Sections 120B read with 13(1)(d) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Section 193 IPC, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years, sought bail during pendency of appeal before the High Court – High Court rejected application – Two split chargesheets arising from the same Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26 of 2008 contained substantially overlapping allegations pertaining to the same check period and same transactions – Appellant had undergone more than four years' incarceration in the earlier case, sentence whereof had been suspended by this Court, and more than ten months in the present case – Held: Bail granted by suspending substantive sentence – Impugned order set aside [Paras 3–23].

Double Jeopardy – Article 20(3) – Split Chargesheets – Permissibility – Appellant contended that filing of two separate prosecutions arising from the same set of overlapping allegations amounted to dual punishment for the same offence, violating the right against double jeopardy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Held: This aspect would have to be gone into by the High Court while deciding the pending appeal – Fact of overlapping allegations in the two cases noted as a relevant consideration for grant of bail – No final determination on merits [Para 20].

Bail – Parity – Sentence Already Suspended in Connected Case – Where sentence in an earlier case involving substantially similar and overlapping allegations had been suspended by this Court and the appellant enlarged on bail, and the appellant had undergone more than ten months of incarceration in the present case as well, the Court found it appropriate to extend similar indulgence – Held: Bail granted subject to condition that appellant file an undertaking to assist in restoration of tribal land to its original status and such other conditions as the trial Court deems fit [Paras 19–21].

Tribal Land – Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 – Confiscation – Restoration – Tribal lands illegally acquired in the name of the appellant's wife by furnishing false residential addresses and submitting false affidavits, in connivance with public officials including the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, were confiscated by the Special Court under PMLA vide judgment dated 21.03.2020 – Assets worth approximately Rs. 18 crores attached and confirmed by the adjudicating authority – State Government yet to take steps for cancellation of sale deeds and reversion of tribal land under CNT Act provisions – Appellant and family members undertook to cooperate in restoration [Paras 6, 15, 17, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail upon suspension of substantive sentence – Appellant to file undertaking before trial Court within seven days of release to assist in restoration of tribal land – Bail subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may deem fit and upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties to its satisfaction [Paras 21–23].

Bail – Conditions – Power of Court – Scope and Limits – Section 483 BNSS – Appellants arrested in connection with FIR No. 11/2025 for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 IPC – Remained in custody for 83 days during investigation – Sessions Court rejected bail – High Court granted bail but imposed condition directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Trichy to sell appellants' properties and distribute sale proceeds to complainant and similarly placed persons – Held: Jurisdiction of court while considering bail is confined to assessing whether accused should be released pending investigation or trial and to impose conditions ensuring fair investigation or trial – Bail jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating civil rights or directing recovery of alleged dues – Impugned condition directing sale of property set aside [Paras 6, 9, 11].

Bail Conditions – Nexus with Object of Bail – Conditions must be regulatory, not punitive or determinative – Ordering sale of property as a bail condition is in the nature of final civil relief affecting property rights – Such conditions have no nexus with the object of granting bail – Bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings – Neither BNSS 2023 nor CrPC 1973 enables a court at the stage of bail or investigation to direct sale of immovable property of accused for settlement of alleged claims [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10].

Bail – Undertaking by Counsel – Scope – Learned counsel for appellants had volunteered an undertaking before the High Court to sell the properties and deposit the amount, which prompted the High Court to direct the Magistrate to sell the properties – Held: Such undertaking by counsel, though recorded, does not empower the court to direct the Magistrate to effect the sale and pay proceeds to victims – This was not warranted – However, condition of depositing title deeds of the properties to secure presence of accused remains intact – Appellants at liberty to take appropriate steps to sell properties and pay amounts to complainant [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned condition directing the jurisdictional Magistrate to sell properties of appellants and distribute proceeds set aside – Condition of depositing title deeds to secure presence of accused left undisturbed [Para 11].

Family Law – Mediated Settlement Agreement – Resilement – DV Proceedings Quashed – Parties married in 2000 entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2024 through mediation, agreeing to dissolve marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appellant-Husband performed his obligations including payment of ₹75,00,000/-, ₹14,00,000/- for car, and return of jewellery – First Motion allowed by Family Court on 14.08.2024 – Respondent-Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion and filed DV Complaint No. 3186/2025 – Held: DV proceedings constitute abuse of process, liable to be quashed – Impugned interim order set aside [Paras 3–9, 37–41, 55(i)].

Mediated Settlement Agreement – Binding Nature – Resilement – A party cannot be permitted to resile from a mediated settlement agreement duly authenticated by a mediator and ratified by the Court, without demonstrating that the settlement was procured by force, fraud or undue influence, or that the opposite party failed to comply with conditions stipulated therein – Resilement from such agreements strikes at the foundational basis of the entire mediation process – Resiling party must be encumbered with heavy costs – Settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint and disputes – Held: Respondent-Wife's conduct in accepting benefits under the Settlement Agreement and thereafter withdrawing consent amounts to abuse of process [Paras 29–35].

DV Act – Section 12 – Complaint Without Specific Allegations – Quashing Justified – A careful perusal of the DV complaint revealed absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence by the Appellant-Husband or his mother – Filing of DV complaint immediately after Contempt Petition was issued against Respondent-Wife, after eight months of the Second Motion deadline, and for the first time in 23 years of marriage, pointed to it being a premeditated afterthought designed to sustain litigation after resilement from the Settlement Agreement – Criminal prosecution without specific averments of violence cannot be permitted and is liable to be quashed [Paras 37–41].

Article 142(1) – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce Granted – Parties living separately since 2022-23 – Both children of the parties are majors – Multiple rounds of litigation initiated by both parties – Settlement Agreement entered through court-directed mediation rendered unworkable by Respondent-Wife's conduct – No possibility of reconciliation – Held: Marriage has irretrievably broken down; present is a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) – Decree of divorce granted subject to compliance with specified terms including payment of remaining alimony of ₹70,22,871/-, handover of PPF passbook, and execution of relinquishment deeds [Paras 42–55].

Conditions for Exercise of Power Under Article 142(1) – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is to be determined factually by weighing several factors including period of cohabitation, nature of allegations, number of attempts at settlement, economic and social status of parties, age and dependency of children, and provision for fair alimony – Power is discretionary and not a matter of right, to be exercised only when the Court is fully convinced that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation – Court is not required to adjudicate on fault but must take a holistic view on the relationship [Paras 44–49].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – DV proceedings quashed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Divorce granted under Article 142(1) – Appellant-Husband directed to pay ₹70,22,871/- (after deducting ₹4,77,129/- towards PPF Account) and hand over PPF passbook within two weeks – Parties to execute relinquishment deeds before jurisdictional Registrar within four weeks – Amount of ₹89,00,000/- deposited by Respondent-Wife before High Court to be returned with accrued interest – All pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties, their family members and relatives, arising out of or in relation to the marriage, stand closed and quashed – Bar on future proceedings [Paras 55–56].

Arbitration – Enforcement of Consent Award – Indemnity Obligation – Trigger Point – Appellant-companies enforcing a Consent Award dated 01.03.2019 passed by SIAC, incorporating a Deed of Compromise whereby Respondent-Promoters undertook to defend specified litigation and ensure no liability was recovered from Appellants – High Court deferred enforcement holding obligation arose only upon confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal – Held: High Court committed error in restricting operative effect to the fifth limb of Paragraph 32(a) alone while rendering the fourth limb otiose – Liability crystallised upon court-directed deposit of Rs. 15,86,17,808/- by Appellants – Enforcement Petition allowed – Promoters directed to pay/deposit the said amount within 30 days [Paras 8–29].

Contract of Indemnity – Absolute vs. Contingent Obligation – Construction of Paragraph 32(a) – Fourth limb of the Consent Award imposed an unconditional obligation on Promoters to "ensure that no liability in regard to the said litigation is recovered from VPS/Medeor by the Forum" – Word "ensure" combined with the broad contractual definition of "Forum" pointed to an absolute obligation – Fifth limb providing for discharge within 30 days after confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal was a backstop guarantee for extreme scenarios, not the primary trigger – Treating fifth limb as the sole operative obligation converts a performance timeline into the indemnity trigger, contrary to established principles of contractual construction – Held: Where liability incurred is absolute, indemnity holder is entitled to call upon indemnifier without awaiting confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal [Paras 19–26].

Contractual Construction – Consent Award – Rules of Interpretation – Consent Award is equivalent to a Consent Decree, being a contract between parties with the court's seal super-added – Courts must give effect to every limb of the contract and cannot render any part otiose – Literal rule of construction to be applied first; purposive construction permissible only where literal reading produces absurdity – High Court's purposive construction ignored the clear and immediate obligation in the fourth limb and produced a paradox whereby Promoters could escape liability entirely by choosing not to appeal to the Supreme Court – Held: Plain reading of all five limbs together yields an immediate enforceable obligation; purposive construction unavailable where literal reading is clear [Paras 17, 20–28].

Internal Self-Contradiction in Impugned Judgment – High Court rejected Promoters' argument that "Forum" meant only the Highest Court of Appeal, yet adopted the same conclusion that liability was payable only after confirmation by the Highest Court of Appeal – Such self-contradiction within the same paragraph rendered the impugned judgment erroneous – Further, High Court ignored the already-crystallised liability arising from its own direction to Medeor to deposit the full award amount for a conditional stay [Paras 16.1–16.5].

Reliance on Precedents – Commercial Contracts – Strict Construction – Promoters' reliance on Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. held misplaced – Both decisions support VPS/Medeor, as they mandate that in commercial contracts courts must give paramount importance to the exact words used and are prohibited from adding, deleting, or substituting words under the guise of interpretation – High Court's departure from the plain terms of the Consent Award was contrary to the ratio of these very decisions [Para 27].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment set aside – Enforcement Petition allowed – Promoters granted 30 days to pay or deposit Rs. 15,86,17,808/- for the benefit of VPS/Medeor – Amount subject to outcome of pending proceedings between EY and Promoters – No order as to costs [Paras 29–30].

Road Safety – National Highways – Suo Motu Cognizance – Interim Directions – Article 21 and Article 142 of the Constitution – Following the loss of 34 lives in road accidents at Phalodi (Rajasthan) and Rangareddy (Telangana) on 02-03.11.2025, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of systemic infrastructure failures and administrative negligence on National Highways – Amicus Curiae appointed – Joint suggestions tendered by learned Solicitor General and Amicus Curiae – Held: National Highways constitute approximately 2% of India's total road length but account for nearly 30% of all road fatalities – Right to safe passage is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21 – Comprehensive interim directions issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 [Paras 1, 4, 5].

Illegal Parking – Prohibition on National Highways – Advanced Traffic Management – No heavy or commercial vehicle shall park on any National Highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at designated bays or Wayside Amenities – Enforcement through ATMS real-time alerts, GPS-timestamped photographic evidence, and integrated eChallan generation – District Magistrates directed to set up standard operating procedures for periodical inspections and patrolling – Compliance within 60 days [Para 4(a)].

Highway Encroachments – Inspection, Survey and Grievance Redressal – NHAI, NHIDCL and State PWDs directed to file consolidated report within 30 days covering encroachment identification, notices under Section 26 of the CNH Act and demolitions – Rajmargyatra encroachment complaint module, toll-free number 1033, and drone-based aerial surveys under DRAMS Policy Circular (05.09.2025) to be operationalised – Six-monthly reports to be filed before this Court [Para 4(b)].

Encroachment Prohibition and Removal – Construction or operation of any new dhaba, eatery, or commercial structure within the Right of Way of any National Highway prohibited with immediate effect – District Magistrates directed to enforce demolition of all unauthorised structures within 60 days in terms of CNH Act procedure and SOP dated 07.08.2025 – No licence, NOC, or trade approval to be granted for sites within Highway safety zones without prior NHAI/PWD clearance [Paras 4(c), 4(d)].

District Highway Safety Task Force – Constitution Directed – District Magistrate of every district through which a National Highway passes directed to constitute a District Highway Safety Task Force within 15 days comprising officers of District Administration, Police, NHAI, PWD, and local bodies – Task Force to hold fortnightly review meetings – State Governments directed to issue notifications within 60 days prohibiting change of land use within 40 metres (residential) and 75 metres (commercial) from the mid-point of any National Highway [Para 4(e)].

Highway Surveillance and Patrolling – ATMS Operationalisation – Dedicated Highway Surveillance Teams of State Police and Transport Department to be constituted within 30 days – Patrol vehicles at intervals not exceeding 50 km, equipped with Vehicle Tracking Devices – NHAI directed to operationalise ATMS comprising TMCC cameras, VSDS speed detectors, VIDS cameras, Variable Message Signboards, and Emergency Call Boxes across all 4/6-lane highways within 60 days [Paras 4(f), 4(g)].

Emergency Response – Wayside Amenities – Accident Blackspots – BLS ambulances and recovery cranes to be deployed within 60 days at intervals not exceeding 75 km on every National Highway – Truck lay-bye facilities to be constructed at intervals of every 75 km with priority to the Amritsar-Jamnagar Highway – MoRTH/NHAI directed to publish comprehensive list of accident blackspots within 45 days and install high-intensity LED lighting, speed enforcement cameras, and retro-reflective warning signs at every blackspot within 4 months of Policy Framework [Paras 4(h), 4(i), 4(k)].

Institutional Co-ordination and Compliance – MoRTH directed to place before this Court within 60 days a report on the constitution of an Inter-State Highway Safety Coordination Committee – All implementing agencies (NHAI, NHIDCL, State PWD, BRO) jointly and severally responsible for compliance – Consolidated district-wise and agency-wise compliance report to be filed in tabular form within 75 days – Copy of order directed to be sent to Chief Secretaries/Administrators and DGPs of all States and Union Territories [Paras 4(l), 4(m), 6].

Decision: Interim directions issued – Matter listed after two months for reporting compliance.