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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 302, 307, 333, 353 of the IPC - Non-Reasoned Order – High Court’s Grant of Bail Without Recording Reasons – Set Aside – The respondent-accused was granted bail by the High Court in a serious offence involving the murder of a project coordinator and his bodyguard – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to assign any reasons for granting bail despite the respondent having over twenty prior criminal cases and being named by co-accused – Held: The High Court’s order granting bail without justification is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside [Paras 10, 13, 16, 18].

Criminal Law – Seriousness of Allegations and Criminal Antecedents – Consideration at Bail Stage – Respondent was accused under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – His name surfaced during investigation through co-accused disclosures – The Supreme Court held that the serious nature of allegations, combined with the accused's criminal antecedents, warranted denial of bail – Directions issued to treat respondent as in judicial custody [Paras 4-6, 15, 18].

Judicial Discipline – Requirement of Reasoned Bail Orders – Reiterated that grant of bail in serious offences must reflect judicial reasoning and application of mind – Absence of reasons leads to arbitrary exercise of discretion – Court emphasised that bail orders must record relevant considerations to enable judicial scrutiny [Paras 13-14, 18].

Decision: Held: High Court’s order granting bail without reasons is set aside – Respondent deemed to be in custody in the present case – Appeal allowed [Para 18].

Motor Accident Compensation – Cancelled Insurance Policy – Pay and Recovery – Appeal Disposed – Offending vehicle’s insurance policy cancelled over three months before accident due to dishonoured premium cheque; insurer intimated owner and RTO—Tribunal and High Court still directed insurer to pay claimants and recover from owner—Supreme Court applied Deddappa and United India Insurance principles: insurer absolved in law upon cancellation before accident with intimation, yet, in exercise of Article 142 powers, pay-and-recover direction sustained in part—No recovery from claimants for 50% already paid; insurer may recover that amount from owner—Remaining 50% recoverable by claimants from owner [Paras 3.1-6].

Cancellation of Policy – Effect on Third Party Claims – While cancellation before accident generally negates liability, Court balanced equities by protecting amounts already disbursed to claimants—Avoided reopening settled part-payments to prevent hardship [Paras 5.3-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed; insurer permitted to recover 50% already paid from vehicle owner; claimants to recover remaining 50% from owner—No recovery from claimants for amounts withdrawn [Para 6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Person Abroad – Appeal Partly Allowed – Claimants challenged High Court’s award of ₹1,17,20,200/- for accidental death of 31-year-old U.S. national, contending omission of “future prospects” – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s income assessment of ₹78,300/- per month but applied 40% addition towards future prospects as per Pranay Sethi, revised conventional heads, and recalculated total compensation to ₹1,60,15,280/- – Additional sum of ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest awarded [Paras 3.7, 5.3-5.8].

Assessment of Income – High Court Correct in Relying on Foreign Earnings Evidence – Salary certificate, tax records with social security number, and U.S. minimum wage data properly considered – Tribunal’s finding of ₹5,000/- per month rejected – No cross-objections from insurer; SC maintained High Court’s income computation [Paras 3.5, 3.7].

Future Prospects – Self-Employed – 40% Addition Applicable – Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi clarified benefit applies to self-employed persons below 40 years – Applied despite complexities of assessing prospects abroad; lack of contrary evidence justified standard addition – Multiplier of 16 upheld [Paras 4, 5.1-5.5].

Conventional Heads – Figures Aligned with Pranay Sethi – Loss of estate ₹15,000/-, funeral expenses ₹15,000/-, loss of consortium ₹40,000/- per dependent (four dependents: ₹1,60,000/-) – Medical/transportation expenses not allowed [Paras 5.5-5.7].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Additional ₹42,95,080/- with 6% interest to be deposited by insurer within four weeks before Tribunal; claimants to withdraw upon verification [Paras 6-7].

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

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

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

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

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

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