Arbitration – Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Arbitral Award Set Aside – Arbitrator awarded reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks to caterers despite express contract and circulars stating otherwise – Supreme Court held that this amounted to rewriting the contract – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider binding policy decisions of Railway Board which governed the MLA and exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 28(3) of the Act – Award found to be patently illegal and in conflict with public policy of India – Set aside under Section 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 62–72].

Contract – Government Policy – Supremacy of Railway Board Circulars – No Unilateral Deviation Permissible – Circulars dated 23.10.2013 and 06.08.2014 formed basis of contract and fixed rates for meals and services – Clause 21.1 of Master Licence Agreement gave precedence to Railway policy over other contractual provisions – Held: No deviation permissible from binding Railway Board circulars – Arbitrator’s contrary interpretation was unjustified [Paras 56–60, 68–69].

Arbitration – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 – Limits of Judicial Review Reaffirmed – Court reiterated limited grounds of interference under Section 34(2A) – Held: Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or correct errors of law unless award shocks conscience or contravenes fundamental policy – Arbitrator’s findings that ignored binding government policy warranted judicial interference [Paras 63–67].

Interest – Arbitrator’s Award on Lump Sum Interest Set Aside – Arbitrator Awarded Interest from 01.01.2018 on Entire Claim Though Claims Arose Periodically – Division Bench rightly held that interest award was erroneous – Supreme Court: In light of full setting aside of award, interest claim becomes infructuous [Paras 43, 72].

Catering Contracts – Welcome Drink Charges – Reimbursement Denied – Bid documents and Clause 8.1 of MLA permitted menu changes – Circulars contemplated welcome drink as part of service without separate charges – Held: No entitlement to separate payment – Arbitrator’s award unjustified [Paras 60–61, 71].

Decision: Appeals of IRCTC allowed – Arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected on 26.07.2022) and Delhi High Court’s judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 set aside – Cross appeals filed by caterers dismissed – Parties to bear own costs.

Registration Law – Mutation Requirement for Sale Deeds – Subordinate Legislation – Constitutionality – Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amended by adding sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii), requiring production of mutation (Jamabandi/Holding) certificate as a precondition for registration – Supreme Court held that the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Such rules indirectly require verification of title by registering authorities which is impermissible – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Registration cannot be refused merely for absence of Jamabandi/Holding allotment – Registration and mutation are distinct legal concepts and cannot be conflated through subordinate legislation [Paras 4-5, 14-17, 23-25].

Property Law – Registration of Documents – Constitutionality of Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – Appellant challenged amended sub-rules requiring mutation proof (Jamabandi/Holding Allotment) as a pre-condition for registration of property documents – Held: The impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Such rules impose an arbitrary and illegal pre-condition for registration which impinges on the right to dispose of property – Appeals allowed and rules struck down [Paras 1, 2.1, 2.2, 5, 25, 29, 38].

Rule-Making Power – Scope under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Section 69 permits framing of rules for regulating registration procedures and maintenance of registers – It does not confer power to prescribe mutation or proof of title as a condition precedent for registration – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) not relatable to any clause under Section 69, including (a), (aa), (h) or (j) – Rule struck down as ultra vires [Paras 14–17, 23–25].

Registration vs. Title – Legal Framework – Registration of a sale deed does not confer title, only evidences transaction – Title determination lies within domain of civil courts – Mutation does not create title, thus insisting on Jamabandi/Holding certificate for registration misconceives legal position – Held: Sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii) disrupt the distinction between registration and ownership [Paras 2.1, 6, 8.1, 8.2, 32].

Mutation Process in Bihar – Practical Difficulties – State argued that impugned rules intended to align registration with ground realities of landholding – Court found that Bihar’s mutation system under 2011 Acts is incomplete – Most jamabandis are outdated or in names of deceased ancestors – Process of survey and digital settlement far from complete – Held: Imposing mutation requirement imposes unreasonable restriction on sale and purchase of property [Paras 7, 26–29].

Right to Property – Constitutional Dimension – Freedom to acquire and dispose of immovable property is a protected right – Arbitrary rule restricting registration amounts to deprivation of property – Held: Procedural hurdles cannot be used to frustrate ownership rights or impair transactional efficiency [Paras 2, 29, 30, 32].

Comparative Review of Existing and Impugned Sub-Rules – Rule 19(i) to (xvi) relate to document execution, property identification, fees, and identity – Do not concern proof of title – Impugned Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) introduce new requirement for mutation proof – Court held: These are qualitatively distinct and impermissible under registration framework [Paras 10–13].

Future Reforms – Conclusive Titling and Technology Integration – Court acknowledged need to modernize property registration system – Suggested adoption of Blockchain for secure, transparent land records – Directed Law Commission to study integration of conclusive titling with existing laws through technology and reforms [Paras 34–37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Patna High Court set aside – Notification dated 10.10.2019 introducing Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) quashed – Parties to bear own costs [Para 38–39].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR on basis of settlement – Section 482 CrPC – Property dispute involving allegations under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 294(b) and 506(2) IPC – High Court dismissed application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered at Halol Town Police Station, District Panchmahal – During pendency of SLP, parties entered into a written settlement dated 23-06-2025 – Supreme Court, by order dated 08-09-2025, took note of settlement, recorded obligation to hand over half portion of the property to complainant, and directed jurisdictional court to appoint a bailiff to deliver possession of the agreed property and submit report – On counsel for both sides conceding that parties will abide by terms of settlement and that disputes inter se stand resolved, Supreme Court set aside impugned High Court order and quashed FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom in terms of the settlement – Held: Criminal proceedings arising out of essentially private property dispute liable to be brought to an end when parties have fully and voluntarily settled their disputes and agreed to honour settlement, including transfer of possession through court process [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure – Compliance with settlement – Court-directed delivery of possession through bailiff – In view of settlement providing that half of the property be given to complainant, Supreme Court found it appropriate, before closing criminal proceedings, to ensure that possession of the property described in settlement is actually delivered – Jurisdictional court directed to appoint bailiff to take possession and submit report within two weeks – Interim protection granted that no coercive steps be taken against petitioners meanwhile – Bailiff’s report ultimately received showing execution of settlement between parties – Held: Once possession in terms of settlement is delivered and settlement is duly executed, criminal proceedings can be quashed as continuation thereof would be an abuse of process in the context of a purely private dispute [Paras 3, 4, 6-8].

Judicial Administration – Non-compliance with Supreme Court’s directions – Explanation by High Court Registry – Despite earlier orders dated 08-09-2025 and 06-10-2025 directing production of bailiff’s report, the same was not forwarded to Supreme Court – Court on 27-10-2025 issued notice to Registrar General of High Court of Gujarat to explain why Judges of trial court had not sent report despite two orders, and warned that, in absence of report, Court would be constrained to seek presence of jurisdictional Judge and District Judge – Registrar General subsequently filed affidavit dated 01-11-2025 explaining delay as lapse on part of officers posted in Registry – Explanation placed on record and matter proceeded on basis of now-available bailiff report and executed settlement – Observed: Lapses in administrative compliance with orders of Supreme Court must be explained by concerned High Court Registry and may invite notice and directions from Court [Paras 4-6].

**Special Leave Petition – Conversion into Criminal Appeal – Effect of settlement post-grant of leave – Leave granted and SLP converted into criminal appeal – Settlement between parties having been recorded, Court treated all disputes inter se as resolved and disposed of appeal by setting aside High Court order and quashing FIR and all proceedings – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of – Held: Once leave is granted and appeal is on board, Supreme Court can mould relief in terms of subsequent settlement duly accepted by parties, including quashing of FIR and setting aside orders impugned before it [Paras 1-2, 7-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court dated 01.03.2024 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 4140 of 2024 set aside – FIR No. 11207028210655 of 2021 dated 31.08.2021 registered at Halol Town Police Station, District Panchmahal, Gujarat, and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed in view of settlement dated 23.06.2025 – Parties bound to abide by terms of settlement – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Paras 7-9].

Stray Animal Menace – Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 – Court examines compliance affidavits filed by States/UTs following prior orders – Amicus Curiae report reveals serious lapses in sterilisation, vaccination, and municipal preparedness – States/UTs directed to file additional affidavits detailing remedial steps – Registry to annex summary report as part of judicial record [Paras 5–7]

Highways – Road Safety – Stray Cattle and Animal-Related Accidents – Directions of Rajasthan High Court endorsed and extended nationwide – States/UTs, NHAI and PWDs directed to remove stray animals from highways – Mandate issued for coordinated patrols, shelters, helplines and signage – Personal accountability fixed on officials – Status reports to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Dog Bites – Institutional Spaces – Alarming rise in attacks at schools, hospitals, stadia, bus depots and railway stations – Detailed incidents from multiple States examined – Causes include poor waste disposal, unguarded premises, and administrative inaction – Court holds such conditions violate Article 21 and demand systemic correction [Paras 12–24]

Preventive Framework – Nationwide Directions – Mandatory fencing, campus security and appointment of Nodal Officers for all public/private institutional spaces – Municipal authorities to remove stray dogs and prohibit their return to same premises – Hospitals directed to stock anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin – Educational institutions to conduct awareness drives – Animal Welfare Board to issue national SOPs – Compliance to be monitored rigorously [Paras 25–32]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Held: Failure to secure public institutions from preventable dog attacks violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Reaffirmation of State obligation to ensure safe environments in spaces of education, treatment and transit – Directions aimed at eliminating human-animal conflict through lawful, humane measures [Paras 22–26]

Decision:

Comprehensive nationwide directions issued for prevention of dog-bite incidents and stray animal control in institutional spaces and highways – States/UTs, Union Ministries, NHAI and Animal Welfare Board to file compliance affidavits within 8 weeks – Non-compliance may attract contempt – Next hearing on 13/01/2026 [Paras 25–33]

Land Acquisition – Employment in lieu of Acquired Land – No Statutory Right – Policy cannot override statute – Petitioner’s family land acquired in 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; compensation paid at that time – Petitioner, born after acquisition, sought government employment in 2025 under a policy granting jobs to land-losers – Authorities and High Court rejected the claim as time-barred and unsupported by law – Held: Under the 1894 Act, acquisition entitles landowners only to compensation; there is no statutory or vested right to employment – Any administrative policy cannot override statutory provisions – Petition filed nearly 18 years after policy formulation is grossly delayed and misconceived – No illegality in rejection by authorities or High Court [Paras 2–3].

Administrative Policy – Employment Schemes for Land-losers – Effect of Delay – Claim for employment raised decades after acquisition is unsustainable—Delay defeats equity—Policy decisions being non-statutory confer no enforceable right unless contemporaneous with acquisition [Para 3].

Result – Special Leave Petition dismissed – No error in High Court order refusing employment – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 4].

Arbitration and Conciliation – Validity of Arbitration Clause – Clause 8.28 not constituting arbitration agreement – Clause referred to dispute resolution through negotiation, mediation by Chairmen, and only used the term "arbitration" loosely – No binding intent or finality indicated – Chairmen of parties not neutral arbitrators – Court held that mere use of the word “arbitration” without intent to submit disputes to binding adjudication does not satisfy Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Held: No valid arbitration agreement existed – Dismissal of Section 11(6) application upheld [Paras 4-6, 13-27]

Contract Law – Interpretation of Dispute Resolution Clauses – Three-tier clause in software agreement involved negotiation, mediation, and court access if unresolved – Clause failed to demonstrate intent to be bound by arbitral decision – Reliance on case law including K.K. Modi, Jagdish Chander, Mahanadi Coalfields to determine essential attributes of arbitration agreement – Held: Clause structured for internal settlement, not formal arbitration [Paras 14-25]

Post-Contractual Correspondence – Effect on Arbitration Agreement – No denial of arbitration clause in respondent’s replies – However, absence of foundational arbitration agreement renders post-notice correspondence irrelevant – Held: No estoppel can operate to create arbitration agreement where none exists – Distinguished Powertech and Visa International cases [Paras 28-31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No valid arbitration agreement existed – Appellant permitted to approach civil court for remedy – No costs awarded [Paras 32-34].

Criminal Procedure – Arrest – Communication of Grounds – Mode, Timing, and Language – Arrest without written communication of grounds violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest and remand thereby rendered illegal – Minimum requirement: Written grounds of arrest to be furnished at least two hours before production for remand – Applies to all offences including under BNS 2023 [Paras 46–58].

Constitutional Law – Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) Violation – Arrest declared illegal if grounds not furnished in writing – mandatory communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 50 CrPC 1973) – Supreme Court holds that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and must be meaningfully communicated in writing in the language understood by the arrestee – Oral communication deemed insufficient, except in limited exigent circumstances, where delay in furnishing written grounds must be justified and completed at least two hours before production for remand – Held: Arrest and remand without such compliance are illegal [Paras 2, 7, 33–36, 39–41, 46, 49–55].

Procedure for Arrest – Mode and Timing of Communication – Arrest in Exceptional Situations – Supreme Court clarifies that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to arrestee in all cases, including offences under BNS 2023 (formerly IPC 1860), UAPA, PMLA, or other statutes – Exception carved out for flagrant arrests during commission of crime or in exigent circumstances – In such cases, oral communication at the time of arrest permitted, but written grounds must be furnished within a reasonable time, and in no case later than two hours before production before magistrate for remand – Remand papers must include such grounds and note cause for any delay – Held: This framework balances fundamental rights and law enforcement needs [Paras 7, 41, 48–54].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22 – Personal Liberty and Legal Aid – Right to legal representation and to oppose remand must be made effective by timely communication of grounds of arrest – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of early access to legal assistance and meaningful opportunity to contest arrest – Cites Suhas Chakma and Ashok v. State of U.P. for reinforcing right to legal aid at pre-remand stage – Communication in a language not understood by arrestee held to defeat the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) – Arrest without such safeguards is unconstitutional [Paras 17–20, 35–38, 42–45].

Interpretation of Precedents – Harmonizing Case Law – Court harmonizes earlier judgments – Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar – Holds that while earlier decisions dealt with special statutes (UAPA, PMLA), the principle of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing applies universally, including to BNS 2023 – Clarifies that Article 22(1) is not offence-specific – Held: Earlier inconsistent High Court views not good law [Paras 9–13, 22–27, 56–58].

Police Powers and Duties – Arrest Procedure – Statutory Compliance under BNSS 2023 – Sections 47 and 48 BNSS mandate informing arrestee and their relatives about the arrest and grounds thereof – Court directs that these duties be recorded in station diary – Magistrates must satisfy themselves that these safeguards have been followed – Emphasizes purpose behind these provisions is to protect liberty, avoid arbitrariness, and reduce custodial abuse – Held: Violation of these procedural duties renders arrest and remand void [Paras 19–21, 47].

Impact of Arrest – Social and Psychological Consequences – Supreme Court acknowledges the deep psychological and societal stigma of arrest – Arrest causes irreversible reputational damage and mental health deterioration – Cites Arnesh Kumar and Joginder Kumar to reinforce that arrest is not to be made mechanically – Held: Arrest powers must be exercised cautiously, keeping in view the consequences and the requirement to inform the arrested person meaningfully [Paras 28–31].

Decision:

– Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 disposed of, as issue of law has been settled – Appeal not entertained on merits [Para 59]

– Ad interim bail granted in Criminal Appeals No. 2189 & 2190 of 2025 to continue – Liberty to prosecution to seek remand after supply of written grounds [Para 60]

– Ad interim bail in SLP (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025 to continue – Matter to be listed before appropriate bench [Para 63]

– Registry directed to circulate this judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs [Para 65]

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Regulations – Whether owner can be compelled to construct commercial ground floor in notified mixed-use streets – Held: No; mixed-use is only permissive, not mandatory – Authorities acted arbitrarily in denying sanction for purely residential construction – Deemed sanction upheld – Directions to approve fresh plans within four weeks – Costs of ₹10 lakhs imposed on SDMC for harassment [Paras 10–16, 19–20].

Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Streets – MPD-2021 – Commercial Use Permissive, Not Mandatory - Mixed-use notification (15.09.2006) and Circular dated 27.05.2009 make it clear that commercial use on ground floor of mixed-use streets is optional – Owner may choose to develop property as (i) commercial, (ii) mixed-use, or (iii) purely residential – The circular expressly states that plans “can be sanctioned… as per the choice of the applicant” – High Court correctly held that owners cannot be forced to convert ground floor to commercial use [Paras 10–12].

Municipal Governance – Arbitrary Refusal of Sanction – Appellant’s Case Found Illogical and Contrary to Record - SDMC’s argument that respondents must compulsorily maintain a commercial ground floor is inconsistent with its own earlier case that the plans lacked stilt parking – No statutory instrument mandates compulsory commercial use – Court finds SDMC’s stand irrational, illogical, and contrary to MPD-2021 – Forcing citizens to set up shops when they desire only residential use held wholly unjustified [Paras 9, 13–14].

Dilapidated Structure – Fundamental Right to Rebuild – Municipality Cannot Prevent Reconstruction of Unsafe Home - Respondents’ 85-year-old residential house (constructed in 1940) was in a dangerously dilapidated condition – Court notes photographic evidence showing the premises at risk of collapse – Instead of ensuring safety, SDMC obstructed rebuilding for 15 years – Conduct held oppressive and amounting to harassment – Right to rebuild residential house recognised as a legitimate, vested entitlement [Paras 15–16].

Concurrent Findings – Tribunal, ADJ, and High Court All Upheld Deemed Sanction – Supreme Court Declines Interference - Three authorities concurrently held that respondents’ plans deserved sanction – Tribunal granted deemed sanction; ADJ affirmed; High Court affirmed and dismissed review – No perversity, no legal error, and no misinterpretation found – Interference under Article 136 unwarranted [Paras 5–9, 17].

Costs – Harassment by Public Authority – Exemplary Costs of ₹10 Lakhs Imposed on SDMC - Given prolonged litigation (15 years), arbitrary obstruction, and hardship caused to elderly residents, Court imposes ₹10,00,000 costs on SDMC to be paid to respondents on or before 17.12.2025 – Payment to be reported to Supreme Court [Para 20].

Directions – Fresh Plans – Mandatory Sanction Within Four Weeks - Respondents permitted to submit fresh building plans for residential construction – SDMC directed to grant sanction within four weeks from submission – Respondents may also rely on earlier plans approved by High Court [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order affirmed – Respondents entitled to rebuild residential house – Fresh plans to be sanctioned within four weeks – Costs of ₹10,00,000 imposed on SDMC – Connected appeal also disposed [Paras 18–22].

Election Law – Disqualification – Non-disclosure of Conviction – Section 138 NI Act – Election Set Aside – Petitioner elected as Councillor but failed to disclose conviction and sentence of one year under Section 138 of the NI Act in affidavit under Rule 24-A – High Court and Trial Court held that non-disclosure breached Rule 24-A and attracted Section 22(1)(d)(i) & (iii) of MP Municipalities Act – Held: Disclosure mandatory irrespective of nature of offence – Omission affected the validity of nomination and the election was rightly declared void [Paras 1–5, 12–17, 19–24]

Election Affidavits – False Declaration – Rule 24-A of MP Nirvachan Rules – Right to Know – Petitioner furnished false affidavit omitting criminal conviction – Such omission held to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of voters under Article 19(1)(a) – Citing Association for Democratic Reforms and Krishnamoorthy – Held: False affidavit violates voter’s right to informed choice and mandates invalidation of the election [Paras 13–15, 20–24]

Subsequent Acquittal – Effect on Nomination Validity – Acquittal After Election – Petitioner claimed disqualification was cured as conviction was later set aside – Court held eligibility is to be assessed as on date of nomination – Subsequent developments irrelevant for compliance with Rule 24-A – Held: Subsequent acquittal does not invalidate prior disqualification or omission [Paras 5, 12, 19]

Article 136 – Discretion Not Invoked – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 – Held: No exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice shown – Petitioner’s non-disclosure was deliberate and unexplained – She did not enter witness box – Bye-election held and she lost – No reason to invoke discretionary jurisdiction [Paras 25–26]

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Election rightly declared void due to improper acceptance of nomination and suppression of material facts – No interference warranted under Article 136 [Paras 25–26]