Prisoners with Disabilities – Constitutional Rights – RPwD Act, 2016 – High-Powered Committee – Directions Extended to All States and UTs – Petition raising issues of rights, detention conditions, and safeguards for disabled prisoners – Court previously issued directions in L. Muruganantham (2025) 10 SCC 401 for identification, accessible infrastructure, healthcare, assistive devices, staff training, accessibility audits, and compliance reporting – Present order extends those directions to all States and UTs and issues further directions – Held: Issues more effectively addressed through High-Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 317 [Paras 1–6].

Grievance Redressal – Inclusive Education – Section 89 RPwD Act – Enhanced Visitation – Additional directions issued: (a) robust, independent and accessible grievance redressal mechanism for disabled prisoners; (b) inclusive education facilities within prison; (c) Section 89 of RPwD Act made applicable to prison establishments; (d) States/UTs to indicate structured mechanism for provision of assistive devices and mobility aids; (e) enhanced visitation rights for prisoners with benchmark disabilities [Para 3].

High-Powered Committee – Mandate Expanded – Compliance Mechanism – Issues in present proceedings entrusted to High-Powered Committee constituted in Suhas Chakma (supra) – Committee empowered to issue directions to State/UT departments, formulate action plan for assistive devices, seek expert assistance, and submit consolidated status report within four months – Expenses to be borne by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment – All States/UTs to file compliance affidavits within six weeks [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Matter referred to High-Powered Committee – States and UTs directed to file compliance affidavits within six weeks – Registry directed to transmit copy of order to Chairperson of High-Powered Committee – Matter listed on 1st September 2026 along with W.P. (C) No. 1082 of 2020.

Environmental Law – National Green Tribunal – Environmental Compensation – Violation of Natural Justice – NGT, while disposing of Original Application arising from a private complaint of air and water pollution against the appellant's iron and steel plant, upheld environmental compensation of Rs. 3,95,71,875/- imposed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for 938 days of violation – Held: The question of environmental compensation was not specifically in issue before the Tribunal in the ongoing proceedings; the appellant was not afforded an appropriate opportunity of being heard on this issue before final orders were passed – Appellant also lost its statutory right of appeal against the order of the Pollution Control Board – Order of the Tribunal set aside and matter remanded [Paras 6–7].

National Green Tribunal – Procedural Propriety – Unilateral Decision Making – Tribunal assumed that since a further appeal would eventually reach the Supreme Court, it was unnecessary to allow the appellant to avail the remedy of statutory appeal – This Court deprecated such practice, reiterating that the Tribunal must ensure procedural integrity and maintain a harmonious balance between justice and due process – Ex parte orders and imposition of damages running to crores without proper hearing are counterproductive to the mission of environmental protection [Para 6].

Subsequent Compliance – Polluter Pays Principle – Compliance with directions of the Joint Committee or being in the process of implementing them does not absolve a party from liability for past environmental violations – Environmental compensation for past violations remains payable notwithstanding subsequent remediation [Para 5 (NGT Order)].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 09.10.2023 of the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, in OA No. 97/2023/EZ set aside – Original Application restored to its original number – Appellant entitled to file additional affidavit and documents – Tribunal directed to hear all parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law – Interim order of stay to continue pending disposal of the Original Application.

Municipal Law – Layout Plan – Incorporation of Private Plots – Division Bench Exceeded Scope – Appellants held registered title to 1600 sq. yards of land in Green Park Extension Colony, New Delhi, originally earmarked for a High School in the 1958 layout plan but de-reserved in 1969 owing to the plot being only 1600 sq. yards against the minimum required area of approximately 4783.96 sq. yards for a High School – De-reservation was never challenged and attained finality – Appellants' predecessors-in-interest secured decrees of permanent injunction against the MCD from civil courts in 1988 restraining interference with their possession – MCD's appeals against the said decrees were dismissed for delay by the Additional District Judge in 1992, and second appeals were also dismissed by the High Court in 1992 – Thereafter, the land changed hands through registered sale deeds, ultimately vesting in the appellants – Held: The findings of the civil court on ownership and possession, having been affirmed through dismissal of the MCD's appeals at every stage, attained finality and could not be unsettled by the Division Bench in writ proceedings [Paras 3–9, 23–24].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Title Not in Issue – The appellants filed a writ petition before the Single Judge solely for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to incorporate their plots in the layout plan of the colony – The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the prayer for incorporation within 60 days – In the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation, the Division Bench traversed beyond the scope of the appeal and rendered observations questioning the appellants' title, holding that the Corporation acted as custodian of public interest over land originally reserved for a public purpose – Held: The Division Bench was not justified in delving into the issue of title, which was neither the subject matter of the writ petition nor raised before the Single Judge; the scope of adjudication was confined to the limited direction issued by the Single Judge [Paras 17, 29, 32].

Finality of Civil Court Decrees – Entry in Property Register Insufficient – A mere entry in the immovable properties register of the MCD does not constitute valid proof of title; the Corporation never asserted title over the subject plots before any forum except through such register entry – The Division Bench's finding that the respondent-Corporation was the custodian of public interest over the land was wholly perverse and unsupported by tangible evidence – The fact that the land was de-reserved in 1969, combined with its passage through multiple registered conveyances and the long-standing possession of the appellants, renders the Division Bench's observations regarding public purpose unsustainable on the face of the record [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.04.2019 set aside – Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.03.2016 restored – Respondent-Corporation directed to consider the appellants' application for incorporation of their plots in the layout plan of the colony within 60 days by passing a speaking order – The disposition shall not be influenced by observations made in the Division Bench's order or in this order – No costs [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Law – Rape – Promise of Marriage – Quashment of Proceedings – Appellant charged under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 IPC on allegations that he established physical relationship with complainant under false promise of marriage – Both parties were previously married; complainant had posted matrimonial advertisement even before her divorce was finalised – Parties cohabited and travelled together consensually for over four years between 2017 and 2020 – No complaint lodged of alleged forcible intercourse of 17.10.2017 until 09.02.2021 – Held: Where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period with full knowledge of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be said that consent was vitiated solely by a promise of marriage; no false promise of marriage made out on facts – Proceedings quashed [Paras 18–23].

False Promise of Marriage vs. Breach of Promise – Consent – Misconception of Fact – Distinction reiterated that a false promise of marriage, made with no intention to marry from the outset and only to satisfy lust, vitiates consent; however, a breach of promise arising from changed circumstances does not amount to the offence under Section 376 IPC – Physical relationship must have a direct nexus to the false promise and must not be explicable by other considerations such as personal liking – Where relationship continued knowingly for years, consent cannot be said to have been obtained under misconception of fact [Paras 21–22].

Maintainability of Second Quash Petition – Section 482 CrPC – There is no inviolable rule that a second quash petition is not maintainable – Where earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without any discussion on merits, the High Court erred in rejecting the fresh petition on grounds of maintainability – When the Court finds on examination that the alleged offence is not made out, it will not be just to dismiss the petition on technical grounds [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 03.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Application No. 2335 of 2025, set aside – RCC No. 328/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, Maharashtra, quashed – Bail bonds, if any, discharged.

Labour Law – Back Wages – Daily Wage Employee – Regularisation – Period of Entitlement – Appellant appointed as Cleaner in 1993, terminated orally in 1994, and found entitled to reinstatement with back wages by the Labour Commissioner and subsequently by the Labour Court in 1995 – Industrial Court in 2007 directed regularisation from the date of completion of 180 days of service – Despite this, respondent-corporation did not regularise him until 2011 and imposed an additional condition of five further years of service in the regularisation letter – Labour Court in 2020 granted back wages of Rs.8,09,218/- for the period October 1993 to 20 January 2011 – High Court set aside this award – Supreme Court restored the Labour Court's order, holding that the doctrine of estoppel cannot shield the employer from paying dues for services rendered, and that the respondent's imposition of a fresh five-year condition after the Industrial Court's 2007 order was an impermissible exercise of unequal bargaining power [Paras 3-7].

Unequal Bargaining Power – Employer's Conduct – Estoppel – Once the Industrial Court in 2007 directed regularisation from the date of completion of 180 days, which order attained finality having not been challenged, the respondent-corporation could not impose a condition in the regularisation letter of 2011 requiring a further five years of satisfactory service before regularisation – Such conduct amounted to abuse of the unequal bargaining power held by the employer over the employee [Para 6].

Back Wages – Interest Rate – Reduced from 12% to 8% – Having regard to the financial implications of imposing 12% interest from October 1993, Supreme Court reduced the interest component to 8% per annum while restoring the back wages award – In the event of non-compliance within eight weeks, the original rate of 12% shall stand revived [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Labour Court's award of back wages of Rs.8,09,218/- for the period October 1993 to 20 January 2011 restored – Interest reduced from 12% to 8% per annum; to revert to 12% upon non-compliance – Respondent directed to pay the amount within eight weeks of receipt of bank details – Litigation costs of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to the appellant.

Service Law – Police Constable – Medical Unfitness – Concealment – Termination Restored – Respondent was selected as Police Constable in 2005 but his appointment was cancelled in 2007 after being found medically unfit (knock knee deformity) on two successive medical examinations – In 2013, claiming parity with other provisionally reinstated candidates without disclosing his knock knee condition to the Superintendent of Police, he was reinstated – On discovery of concealment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and his services terminated – Services Tribunal and High Court set aside the termination holding charges unproved – Supreme Court set aside these findings, holding that non-disclosure of medical condition while seeking re-appointment amounted to deliberate suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, and that ineligibility goes to the root of the matter [Paras 14-21, 24].

Fraud and Suppression – Principle that Fraud Unravels Everything – No Concept of Negative Equality – A person claiming parity or applying for consideration of his case for appointment must clearly disclose all material factors including medical fitness – Respondent's claim to parity with Nitin Kumar Upadhyay was itself tainted, as Nitin Kumar Upadhyay had similarly not disclosed his medical condition (colour blindness) while seeking reinstatement – No concept of negative equality exists under law – Claiming benefit of a fraudulently obtained appointment by another cannot confer a right [Paras 16-18, 20].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Enquiry Procedure – Technical Distinction Rejected – Services Tribunal drew a technical distinction that chargesheet mentioned 'colour blindness' whereas respondent suffered from 'knock knee', and thus charges were not proved – Supreme Court rejected this approach as hyper-technical and contrary to public interest – A person with medical deformity 'A' cannot be permitted to join service merely by correctly denying that he does not suffer from medical deformity 'B' – Larger public interest and proven irregularities in the recruitment process were not properly appreciated by the Services Tribunal or the High Court [Paras 22-23].

Duties of Senior Officers in Public Recruitment – Court noted with concern that the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun failed to verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the respondent's request for reinstatement – Such lack of sensitivity, responsibility and caution damages the credibility of the system and militates against public interest – Appellants directed to set their house in order, failing which coercive orders would follow [Para 19, 23].

Direction Regarding Nitin Kumar Upadhyay – As Nitin Kumar Upadhyay, who suffered from colour blindness (another disqualifying condition), was reportedly still in service, Court directed that his case be reconsidered on the touchstone of prescribed eligibility criteria including medical fitness within three months, with due procedure and opportunity of hearing [Para 20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgments of the High Court and the judgment of the Services Tribunal set aside – Termination of respondent restored – Amounts paid for period of actual service not to be recovered; unpaid dues for period of actual service to be paid within four weeks failing which interest @ 6% per annum to accrue.

Criminal Law - Contempt of Courts – Suo Motu Cognizance – Advocate's Press Conference – Allegations Against Sitting Judge – Appeals Dismissed – Appellant-advocate held a press conference making insinuations and casting aspersions against a sitting Judge of the Bombay High Court, alleging her disqualification from hearing a matter on the ground that her sister was an accused in an FIR – Chief Justice took suo motu cognizance, constituted a five-Judge Bench, and issued a show cause notice – High Court rejected appellant's application for impleadment of the said Judge as a party-respondent, and registered additional contempt proceedings based on scandalous statements made in the interim application itself – Supreme Court, finding no ground for interference at this stage, dismissed the appeals and requested the High Court to proceed expeditiously [Paras 2-3, 9-17, 35-38].

Judicial Independence – Public Confidence – Duty of Advocates – Prohibition on Scandalising the Court – An advocate, as an officer of the Court, bears a heightened obligation to conduct himself with restraint, sobriety and fidelity to professional ethics both within and outside the courtroom – Carrying a pending judicial controversy into the public domain in a manner that tends to sensationalise proceedings or scandalise the institution or its Judges is wholly inconsistent with the discipline expected of an advocate – Grievances against judicial orders must be ventilated through established legal remedies before appropriate forums, not through public commentary capable of influencing perception about the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 26-34].

Impleadment of Sitting Judge in Contempt Proceedings – Permissibility – A person who merely furnishes information to the Chief Justice cannot be construed as a complainant, nor can such person be regarded as a necessary or proper party in contempt proceedings – Prayer for impleadment of the concerned Judge rightly rejected [Para 13].

Professional Misconduct – Jurisdiction of High Court vis-à-vis Bar Council – Appellant contended that finding of professional misconduct recorded against sixteen advocates by the High Court was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the power to initiate and adjudicate disciplinary proceedings against advocates is exclusively vested in the State Bar Council/Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961 – The Court left the issue open to be examined by the High Court in accordance with law [Para 21].

Precedents – Scope of Bona Fide Legal Defence in Contempt – Appellant contended that decisions in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P. and C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta no longer hold the field in view of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar and In re: C.S. Karnan, and that raising such legal submissions in defence cannot constitute contempt – Court declined to express any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues to be independently adjudicated by the High Court [Paras 19-20, 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court requested to proceed expeditiously and adjudicate all issues on merits independently – Observations confined to prima facie consideration for disposal of appeals and not to be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.

Service Law – Recruitment – Essential Qualification – Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Prescribed Experience – The Board issued Advertisement No. 3001-3010 dated 21.07.2016 for one unreserved post of Computer Hardware Engineer on contract basis, prescribing as an essential qualification a B.E./B.Tech in Electronics Telecommunication/IT with at least five years' experience in computer manufacturing/maintenance in a company of repute, with preference to be given to candidates with an M.Tech degree – The selected candidate Himakshi possessed an M.Tech degree but had only approximately one year of work experience at the relevant date; the unsuccessful candidate Rahul had approximately six years of experience but possessed only a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications – Himakshi secured the highest marks in the written test and personal interview combined – Held: A preference for higher qualification operates only within the zone of candidates who have already fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria; it does not enlarge or modify the field of eligibility itself — the stage of extending preference arises only after a candidate satisfies the essential qualifications, and where a candidate does not meet the threshold requirement of eligibility, the question of extending preference does not arise [Paras 5–8, 21–25].

Power of Relaxation – Must Be Consciously Exercised in Writing – Rule 18 of the R&P Rules confers power upon the Board to relax any provision for reasons to be recorded in writing; Clause 2 preceding Rule 7 permits relaxation of age and experience when a candidate is otherwise well qualified — however, the mere existence of the power of relaxation does not obviate the manner of its exercise — relaxation must be exercised consciously by the recruiting agency, for reasons recorded in writing, upon due consideration of the nature of the requirement and suitability of the candidate — on a call for records by this Court, no material was produced disclosing any specific decision granting relaxation in favour of the selected candidate; the record of the Committee was silent except as to marks secured — absence of any deliberation or reasoning reinforces that selection was effected without due application of mind and without granting relaxation [Paras 28–37, 39].

Equity Cannot Override Breach of Essential Qualification – The selected candidate was regularised in service in 2019 and has continued in service on account of the stay granted by this Court — it was urged that long continuance in service, absence of mala fides and equities crystallised over time warranted protection of her appointment — Held: Equitable consideration is not a matter of right and is discretionary; it cannot be invoked to dilute or override essential eligibility requirements forming the basis of the selection process — the cases in which this Court extended equitable protection involved deficiencies that were either marginal or capable of being cured through service on the post itself — in the present case, the defect goes to the root of eligibility; the requisite experience of five years in computer manufacturing/maintenance in a company of repute is of a specialised and external nature which cannot be acquired by serving as a Computer Hardware Engineer — accordingly, inherent illegality arising from contravention of the R&P Rules cannot be dispensed with by equitable considerations [Paras 41–49].

Fresh Selection Process – No Direction for Appointment of Unsuccessful Candidate – None of the candidates who appeared for the selection possessed the required experience in a computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute as specifically prescribed; the unsuccessful candidate's experience was as a Senior Technical Assistant, Project Associate and Additional Programme Officer in public institutions, and the selected candidate's experience was as a Vocational Trainer (Telecom) in a government school — the selection process itself was vitiated for failure to scrutinise essential eligibility at the threshold — a direction to appoint Rahul would amount to substituting one illegality with another — mere participation in the selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment [Paras 50–54].

Decision: Both Civil Appeals dismissed – Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld – Selection and appointment of Himakshi not sustained in law – No direction for appointment of the unsuccessful candidate Rahul or any other candidate – Respondent Board at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for selection to the post strictly in accordance with the R&P Rules – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 56–59].

Agricultural Subsidy – Cold Storage – Withdrawal of Subsidy – Appellant, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the APMC Act 1963, applied for subsidy under the NHB/NABARD Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction of a cold storage facility – 50% advance subsidy of Rs. 25 lakhs was released – Joint Monitoring Visit on 19.11.2008 found the facility at minimum capacity utilisation – Remaining subsidy was kept pending – Cold storage unit caught fire on 03.05.2011 due to short circuit – NABARD thereafter withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already paid – Single Judge set aside the withdrawal and directed release of remaining subsidy – Division Bench reversed and restored the authority's decision – Supreme Court sets aside the Division Bench and restores the Single Judge's order – Appeal allowed [Paras 2, 5, 6, 11].

Subsidy Scheme – Compliance – Efforts by Appellant – Joint Monitoring Visit Report itself recorded that the unit was "completed and commissioned" and recommended consideration for final subsidy as per NHB/NABARD guidelines – Appellant, through its bank GSCARDB, made repeated written requests between June 2009 and April 2011 seeking re-inspection and release of final subsidy – Authorities failed to conduct the requested inspections or release the amount despite numerous communications – Fire occurred while the matter stood at the stage of exchange of letters – Held: Appellant had discharged its obligation of making efforts under the Scheme; withdrawal of subsidy and recovery of amount already paid were unjustified – Contention of NHB that the appellant miserably failed to make efforts is contradicted by the Monitoring Committee's own report [Paras 8, 9, 10].