Environmental Law – Protection of Delhi Ridge – Directions for Statutory Constitution and Functioning of DRMB – Supreme Court directs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to constitute the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) as a statutory body under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Earlier, DRMB functioned under court orders without statutory backing – Held: Without statutory authority, effective and accountable functioning of DRMB was not possible – Further directed constitution of a Standing Committee for daily functioning and mandated DRMB to act as single-window authority for all issues relating to Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 41-47, 50-52, 57].

Forest Conservation – Final Notification under Section 20, Indian Forest Act – Non-notification of Delhi Ridge deprives area of legal protection – Although preliminary notifications under Section 4 were issued in 1994 and 1996, final notification under Section 20 still pending – NGT (2021) and High Court (2024) directed GNCTD to issue notification – Court held delay unjustified – Ridge must be notified as Reserved Forest for its ecological integrity to be preserved [Paras 4, 5, 34, 35].

Environmental Degradation – Encroachment on Delhi Ridge – CEC Report and court-appointed authorities noted rampant encroachments – Court observed lack of active steps from GNCTD – Held: Encroachments defeat purpose of ecological protection – Directed DRMB to ensure removal of encroachments from both Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge [Paras 8, 36, 54, 57(iii)(c)].

Ecological Preservation – Morphological Ridge – Ridge-like areas outside notified Ridge require equal protection – Affirmed legal necessity for their identification and conservation – Held: Morphological Ridge must be preserved in same manner as notified Ridge – Committee formed by Court in 2023 directed to complete identification process – DRMB to ensure protection and ecological restoration of the Morphological Ridge [Paras 11-14, 37, 38, 57(iii)(d)-(e)].

Environmental Governance – Multiplicity of Monitoring Bodies – Presence of overlapping committees (CEC, NGT Oversight Committee, High-Powered Committees) causing duplication and conflicting decisions – Court directed MoEF&CC to consolidate functions into a single authority – DRMB reconstituted with statutory status and given sole monitoring authority – Standing Committee constituted under DRMB for efficient functioning [Paras 25-27, 39, 40, 50-52, 57].

Legal Accountability – DRMB's Statutory Status and Judicial Review – Held: DRMB must have statutory status to ensure transparency, accountability, and judicial scrutiny – Orders of DRMB would be subject to challenge before NGT under Section 14 of NGT Act or before High Court under Articles 226/227 – DRMB to function under environmental rule of law ensuring participatory governance [Paras 42-46].

Institutional Framework – Composition and Functions of Statutory DRMB – DRMB to consist of 13 members including Chief Secretary, GNCTD (Chair), representatives from MoEF&CC, DDA, civic bodies, civil society, and CEC – DRMB directed to undertake scientific management, ecological restoration, and prevent fragmentation of Ridge – Required to submit six-monthly reports and maintain transparency through public notices, consultations and website publication [Paras 57(i), 57(iii)(a)-(h)].

Judicial Supervision – Role of CEC in DRMB – Representative of Central Empowered Committee to be permanent member of DRMB – To submit quarterly reports to Supreme Court on DRMB’s performance – Held: CEC’s long-standing role in Ridge protection justifies its formal inclusion in DRMB [Paras 48, 49, 57(iv)].

Decision: Directions issued – MoEF&CC to notify DRMB under Section 3(3) of EP Act – DRMB to be sole authority for Ridge issues – Standing Committee to be constituted – Identification and notification of Morphological Ridge to be completed – Encroachments to be removed – Periodic reports to be submitted to Supreme Court.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Economic Offences – Bank Fraud – PC Act – One-time Settlement – Held: High Court erred in quashing FIR and chargesheet solely on settlement; grave financial fraud, fabrication of documents, loss to public exchequer, and involvement of bank manager under PC Act make quashing impermissible – Proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet – Economic Offences – Public Interest – High Court quashed proceedings on basis of one-time settlement between borrower-company and bank – Supreme Court held that High Court failed to consider material findings of investigation establishing fabrication of work orders, forged mortgage documents, misrepresentation, and criminal conspiracy – Offences under PC Act and bank fraud cases cannot be quashed merely because dues are settled – Loss to public exchequer of more than ₹5 crores remained even after settlement – Held: Quashing erroneous; proceedings restored [Paras 23-27, 30-34].

Bank Fraud – Fabricated Documents – Misrepresentation – CBI investigation found that accused company submitted forged work orders (3 entirely fabricated, 7 misrepresented), false stock statements, and manipulated revenue records – Findings made out offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) PC Act – High Court ignored these crucial facts while quashing proceedings – Held: Quashing unsustainable [Paras 6-8, 23].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution of Bank Manager – Sanction granted – Quashing entire proceedings would indirectly exonerate public servant involved in financial misconduct – Offences under PC Act not private in nature and cannot be quashed on compromise – Public interest paramount – Held: High Court order perverse [Paras 13-14, 23-24].

One-Time Settlement – Not a Ground for Quashing – Settlement resulted in substantial haircut; bank recovered ₹41 crores against dues of ₹52 crores plus interest – Such settlements done under compulsion, not indicating absence of criminality – Economic offences have societal impact – Repayment does not wash away criminal liability – Held: Continuation of prosecution necessary in public interest [Paras 12, 26-27].

Distinguishing Prior Cases – Jaswant Singh, B.B. Aggarwal, Narendra Lal Jain – Supreme Court held those precedents inapplicable as they did not involve PC Act offences, or involved only civil-flavoured disputes, or lacked allegations of forged documents – Present case involves grave economic offences and fraud upon public exchequer – Consequently, reliance misplaced [Paras 28-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order quashing FIR and chargesheet set aside – Criminal proceedings restored before Trial Court – No observations to affect merits of trial [Paras 34-36].

Criminal Law – Curative Petition – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death in the Rimpa Haldar murder case based on a Section 164 CrPC confession and alleged recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Subsequent acquittals in 12 companion cases based on same evidentiary foundation – High Court and later Supreme Court found the confession inadmissible and recoveries unreliable – Held: Manifest miscarriage of justice as identical facts yielded inconsistent judicial outcomes – Curative jurisdiction rightly invoked to preserve judicial integrity [Paras 1, 5, 10, 16]

Curative Jurisdiction – Scope and Principles – Narrowly limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of process – Not a second review – Triggered where outcomes are irreconcilably inconsistent on same factual substratum or where natural justice is violated – Finality yields to constitutional duty in cases of manifest injustice – Reaffirmed that this jurisdiction arises ex debito justitiae and flows from Articles 129, 137, 142 of the Constitution and Order XLVIII of Supreme Court Rules – [Paras 2, 3, 4]

Confession under Section 164 CrPC – Voluntariness and Admissibility – Confession by petitioner found inadmissible in 12 other cases – Petitioner was in continuous police custody for ~60 days before confession – No meaningful legal aid – Investigating Officer’s proximity compromised voluntariness – Repeated references in confession to coercion and tutoring – Magistrate failed to record unequivocal satisfaction on voluntariness – Bar under Section 24 of Evidence Act attracted – Same confession cannot be treated as voluntary in present case when judicially discredited elsewhere [Paras 8.2, 11]

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Alleged recoveries made from open public areas already under excavation – No contemporaneous disclosure memo proved – Contradictions in remand and seizure records – Public and police had prior knowledge of recovery sites – Recovery site not under exclusive domain of petitioner – Held: Essential elements of legal discovery missing – Section 27 inapplicable – Findings already accepted in companion acquittals apply equally here [Paras 8.3, 12]

Forensic Evidence – Insufficiency and Inconsistency – No human bloodstains, tissue, or trace evidence recovered from D-5 despite claims of multiple homicides and dismemberment – DNA analysis aided identification but not authorship – Knives and axe recovered bore no incriminating material – No expert evidence linking implements to injuries or petitioner’s capability to commit acts alleged – Circumstantial chain incomplete – Forensic gaps fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8.4, 8.5, 13]

Investigation – Deficiencies and Fairness – Investigation found seriously flawed – Disclosure not contemporaneously recorded – Remand papers contradicted prosecution theory – No medical documentation during long custody – Confession recording process lacked independence – Failure to investigate key leads (e.g., organ trade angle flagged by Ministry) – Witnesses from household and vicinity not examined – Held: Investigative lapses corroded fairness, reliability and integrity of process [Paras 8.6, 14, 18]

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Right to Equality and Fair Procedure – Conviction cannot stand on evidentiary basis already held legally inadmissible in identical matters – Upholding conviction would violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty) – Like cases must be treated alike – Disparity in identical records undermines rule of law – Held: Principles of equality and fairness demand relief under curative jurisdiction [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Presumption of Innocence – Grave Suspicion vs Legal Proof – Court reaffirms that criminal conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal evidence – Especially vital where capital sentence is imposed or serious consequences follow – [Para 17]

Final Relief – Curative Petition allowed – Supreme Court judgment dated 15.02.2011 affirming conviction and death sentence set aside – Review order dated 28.10.2014 also recalled – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364, 376, 201 IPC quashed – Petitioner acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case – Connected SLPs disposed as infructuous [Paras 19–25]

Decision: Curative Petition allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC set aside – Petitioner acquitted – Release directed – All related proceedings disposed of as infructuous.

Religious Endowment – Execution of Compromise Decree – Dispute between two sects of Kuruba community over custody of idols and performance of pooja to deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy – Compromise decree passed on 01.11.1933 provided for rotational pooja, joint trusteeship, and shared possession of idols and articles – Execution Petition filed in 2000 alleging non-compliance by respondents – Held: Appellants failed to prove breach or that respondents were ever in possession – Execution cannot be granted based on presumptions – High Court rightly set aside Executing Court’s order [Paras 1–2, 5–7, 23–28]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Onus on Decree-Holder – Decree-holder must prove willful disobedience or breach of decree by judgment-debtor – No evidence adduced to show rotation of idols occurred or that Rs.2,000/- was paid as per Clause (1) of decree – Decree not acted upon for decades – Mere long silence cannot be presumed as compliance – Held: Presumption cannot substitute proof in execution proceedings [Paras 24–26, 28]

Religious Practices – Implementation of Ritual Rotation – Compromise decree required rotation of idols every six months and alternating pooja every three months – Also required appointment of two trustees from each group – No material produced to prove appointment of trustees or maintenance of accounts – Admitted failure to implement decree – Held: Scheme under decree never operationalised – Absence of compliance points to continued exclusive possession by appellants themselves [Paras 25–27]

Evidence – Presumption vs Proof – Executing Court proceeded on presumption that respondents had custody due to absence of prior dispute – However, no documentary or independent evidence produced – Testimony of witnesses consisted of bare assertions – Appellants’ own witness admitted uncertainty regarding custody and non-payment of Rs.2,000/- – Held: Findings based on assumption without proof are legally unsustainable [Paras 24–26]

Execution of Consent Decree – Long Delay and Inaction – Compromise decree passed in 1933 – Execution sought only in 2000 – No proof of continuous implementation – No trustee system shown to have been followed – Non-payment of agreed amount by respondents evident – Held: Decree never acted upon – Execution barred due to lack of factual foundation [Paras 6, 7, 25–28]

Findings of Fact – High Court’s Interference with Executing Court – High Court reversed Executing Court’s order due to lack of evidence and reliance on mere inferences – Findings of fact revisited only where trial court’s findings are based on conjecture or are unsupported – Held: High Court committed no error in setting aside execution on factual grounds [Paras 13, 28–29]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No interference warranted with High Court’s judgment setting aside execution of 1933 compromise decree – Execution Petition rightly held unsustainable for lack of proof [Para 29]

Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.

Central Excise – Manufacture – Boilers in CKD Condition – Bought-Out Items – Final product (steam-generating plant) assembled at site using bought-out items and CKD parts – Such assembly results in immovable property – Held: Not “goods” within meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Excise duty not leviable – Valuation under Section 4 cannot determine excisability [Paras 33–44, 64].

Excise Law – Section 3 vs Section 4 – Valuation Follows Levy – Held: Section 3 is charging provision; Section 4 is machinery/valuation provision – Assessing excisability based on transaction value under Section 4 is impermissible – Transaction value relevant only if goods are excisable [Paras 41–43].

Movability – Immovable Property – Boiler Assembly at Site – Boiler parts embedded in earth using cement, bricks, asbestos and other materials – Boiler cannot be dismantled without substantial damage – Such structure is immovable – Therefore, not excisable goods under Central Excise Act [Paras 45–63].

Excise Valuation – Bought-Out Items – Cost of bought-out items delivered directly to buyer not includible in assessable value – These items never entered manufacturer’s factory and were not processed – No evidence of forming integral part of excisable goods – CESTAT erred in including their value [Paras 18–19, 66–69].

Limitation – Extended Period under Section 11A – No Wilful Suppression – All facts disclosed in statutory returns – Bought-out items duty paid by third-party vendors – No positive act of concealment or intention to evade duty – Held: Extended limitation period not invocable – Show cause notice time-barred and invalid [Paras 74–80].

CESTAT Order – Reversal of Lower Authorities – CESTAT erred in ignoring evidence and settled law – Failed to address immovability issue despite it being raised and accepted earlier – Wrongly relied on tariff headings to infer excisability [Paras 10–14, 65–67].

Excess Duty Collection – Not Determinative – Mere recovery of duty from buyer on bought-out items does not confer excisability – Proper remedy is under Section 11D, not valuation under Section 4 – Recovery mechanism distinct from liability [Paras 70–73].

Decision: Appeals allowed – CESTAT’s order set aside – Show cause notice held invalid – No excise duty payable on bought-out items or final boiler – No penalty or interest payable – Demand quashed [Paras 82–84].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 302 IPC – Conversion to Section 304 Part I – Appellant convicted for murder of deceased Louis Williams based on knife injuries inflicted during altercation – Trial Court and High Court convicted under Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court held: injuries not shown to be inflicted with intention to cause death – Death occurred 13 days later due to septicemia – No evidence of premeditation or intent to kill – Act done in anger and provocation – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 6–7]

Mens Rea – Intention vs. Knowledge – Section 304 IPC – Court analysed distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Held: Where death is caused with knowledge but without intention to kill, Section 304 Part I applies – Appellant knew that injuries with knife could cause death in ordinary course – However, no specific intent to kill found – Act committed during late-night altercation following earlier dispute – Falls under second degree culpable homicide [Paras 5.6–6.2]

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Credibility – Defence contended that only relatives of deceased were eyewitnesses – Gajraben (sister) and Rajesh (nephew) – Court held their testimony reliable – Supported by medical evidence – No material contradiction found – Conviction upheld on facts but altered on legal classification of offence [Para 5.2]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Delay in Fatal Outcome – Victim died 13 days after injury due to septicemia – Court held this did not negate causal link between injury and death – Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death – Medical cause of death confirmed prosecution case – Delay in death does not mitigate seriousness of offence [Paras 3.2, 6.3]

Sentencing – Sentence Already Undergone – Appellant had served over 14 years and was on bail – Court held sentence already undergone sufficient for conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC – No further imprisonment ordered – Bail bond discharged [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence of 14 years already undergone deemed sufficient – Bail bond discharged.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Maintainability of Appeal – Commercial Suit filed without Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of CCA 2015 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint amounts to a 'decree' under Section 2(2) CPC – Such decree is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – High Court erred in holding appeal to be non-maintainable [Paras 5, 9, 13-15, 20-21]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Interpretation – Main provision permits appeals against judgments and orders of Commercial Court – Proviso restricts appeals only for interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order and not covered by the proviso – Hence appeal lies under the main provision [Paras 16-17]

Distinction from Precedent – Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works – Distinguished – In that case, rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d) was challenged – Court clarified only allowed orders under Rule 10 are appealable under Order XLIII – But rejection of plaint (not application) constitutes a decree, hence distinguishable and appealable [Paras 18-19]

Right to Remedy – Plaintiff whose plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless – Filing of a fresh suit not an appropriate alternative – Appeal is the proper remedy [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal before High Court held to be maintainable – Restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs.

DNA Testing – Presumption of Legitimacy – Criminal Proceedings – Section 112 Evidence Act – Right to Privacy – Constitution of India – DNA test sought to prove that appellant fathered child during subsistence of marriage between Respondent No.1 and her husband Abdul Latheef – Supreme Court held: statutory presumption under Section 112 protects child’s legitimacy unless non-access is proved – No material evidence of non-access or incapacity of husband produced – Birth and school records name Abdul Latheef as father – Mere allegation of extramarital affair or simultaneous access does not rebut presumption – DNA test cannot be ordered to displace conclusive proof without strong evidence [Paras 24–37]

Right to Privacy – Consent and Bodily Autonomy – DNA Test – Court reiterated that DNA testing infringes right to privacy under Article 21 – Such testing must satisfy test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality – Respondent No.1’s willingness to undergo test does not override rights of appellant and the now-major child – No legitimate state interest shown – Held: direction for DNA test is disproportionate and unconstitutional [Paras 45–48]

Adverse Inference – Section 114 Evidence Act – Refusal to undergo DNA test – Respondent sought adverse inference against appellant – Court held: such inference can only arise if presumption under Section 112 is first rebutted – Since non-access not proved, no occasion arises to invoke Section 114 – Respondent cannot bypass requirement of displacing statutory presumption [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 53 and 53A CrPC – Medical examination of accused – High Court relied on these provisions to justify DNA test – Court held: Sections 53 and 53A applicable only where examination directly relates to proving offence – Cheating and harassment charges do not require paternity proof – Use of DNA test in absence of nexus with alleged offence is unjustified and intrusive [Paras 55–57]

Judicial Discretion – Use of Scientific Tools – Court cautioned against routine or speculative use of DNA testing – Strong prima facie case and ‘eminent need’ must be shown – Held: Scientific advancement must not override legal safeguards – Ethical and psychological implications, especially for now-major child, must be considered – DNA test cannot be directed as a fishing inquiry or to satisfy mere suspicion [Paras 28–31, 51]

Collateral Issue – Paternity not central to criminal charge – FIR does not hinge on paternity of child – Child not party to proceedings – Direction for DNA test held to be irrelevant and disproportionate to charges under IPC and Tamil Nadu Act – Held: Paternity is at best a collateral issue and DNA test unnecessary for adjudication of cheating or harassment allegations [Paras 52–54]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.521 of 2017 set aside – Direction for DNA test quashed – Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – No adverse inference to be drawn from appellant’s refusal – Paternity not essential to establish offences alleged – No compelling investigative need shown.