Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Insurance Company – Right to Contest Claim – Quantum of Compensation – Issue whether insurer, when impleaded as a party-respondent in a claim petition, can challenge the award on all available grounds including quantum without restriction to Section 149(2) – Held: Once insurer is impleaded as a party, it is entitled to contest the claim on all grounds and is not confined to defences under Section 149(2) of the Act [Paras 7–7.3].

Section 170, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Permission to Contest on Merits – Rejection by Tribunal – Application filed by insurer under Section 170 rejected by Tribunal – High Court refused to consider challenge to quantum – Held: Rejection of Section 170 application does not bar insurer from contesting claim when it is already impleaded as a party – Such rejection can always be assailed along with final adjudication [Paras 7.3, 7.4].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Three-Judge Bench Decision – Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta – Held: Law laid down by three-Judge Bench is binding – Any contrary view of a smaller Bench has no precedential value – Shila Datta authoritatively settles that insurer impleaded as respondent can contest claim on all grounds [Paras 4, 7].

Motor Accident Claims – Assessment of Income – Quantum – Insurer alleged collusion between parties and improper proof of income of deceased seaman drawing salary in foreign currency – High Court failed to examine quantum on merits – Held: Error in law in depriving insurer of opportunity to contest assessment of compensation [Paras 4, 7.4].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Remand – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration on issue of quantum of compensation – Both parties to be afforded opportunity of hearing – Amount already released to claimant to remain subject to final outcome [Paras 8–9].

Delay – Expeditious Disposal – Accident occurred more than 15 years ago – High Court requested to expedite hearing of appeal on remand [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision on quantum of compensation – Pending applications disposed of.

Arbitration – Section 11(6A) – Arbitrability of Disputes – Leave and License Agreement – Monetary Claims – Arbitrator Appointment – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 41 of 1882 Act – Valid Arbitration Clause Not Rendered Inoperative by Statutory Bar – Clause 33 of Agreement Held to Exist and Operative – High Court Rightly Appointed Arbitrator – Appeal Dismissed – Dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement for premises in Malad, Mumbai – Appellant terminated the agreement and claimed refund of security deposit – Respondent claimed arrears of license fees for the lock-in period – Arbitrator appointed under Section 11, Arbitration Act – Appellant objected citing Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, contending exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court – Held: Court under Section 11(6A) to only examine the existence of arbitration agreement – Clause 33 validly provides for arbitration – Dispute on nature of claim (debt vs. license fee) to be determined by arbitral tribunal under Section 16 – Reliance on Central Warehousing judgment distinguished based on facts – Arbitration clause not rendered non-existent by Section 41 of 1882 Act – Appeal dismissed – Arbitrator to conclude proceedings in 6 months [Paras 1-28].

Contempt of Court – Compliance – Supreme Court in earlier judgment directed Agra Development Authority to return ₹3,99,100 worth of non-judicial stamp papers – Respondent returned expired original stamp papers but did not refund the monetary value – Held: Act amounts to non-compliance in spirit, even if not in letter – Contempt petition maintainable [Paras 2-3]

Stamp Duty – Refund – Rejection by Registration Department – Department cited Rule 218 of U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, which bars refund of physical stamp papers after eight years – Petitioner’s application rejected on limitation grounds – However, Court found that directions in earlier order warranted refund [Paras 4-5, 7]

Equity and Justice – Bonafide Interpretation and Apology – State of U.P. impleaded later and admitted mistake – Offered unconditional apology and stated readiness to comply with Court's order – Supreme Court inclined not to pursue contempt but to ensure compliance [Para 7]

Relief – Refund Ordered – Without entering into merits of limitation, Court directed State of U.P. to refund ₹3,99,100 to petitioner upon return of original stamp papers – Time of two months granted for compliance – Contempt petition against Agra Development Authority closed [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Contempt petition partly allowed – Respondent No. 2 (State of U.P. through Collector, Agra) directed to refund ₹3,99,100 to the petitioner within two months – Contempt proceedings against Agra Development Authority closed – Pending applications disposed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Declined for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – The Supreme Court held that while prolonged incarceration implicates Article 21, it does not automatically displace the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. The Court found that the prosecution material, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid in the alleged conspiracy, involving planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction beyond episodic or localised acts. The complexity of the prosecution, nature of evidence, and stage of proceedings did not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and ensure timely examination of protected witnesses. The appeals for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were dismissed, and their prayers for bail rejected [Paras 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 193, 194, 195, 196, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 430, 431, 432].

Criminal Law – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Section 43D(5) – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21, Constitution of India – Bail Granted for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals for these appellants, holding that their continued incarceration was not indispensable for a fair trial, given their attributed roles, the nature of material relied upon, and the current stage of proceedings. The Court found that their roles were primarily operational or facilitative, distinct from the conceptual and directive roles attributed to the principal conspirators. The Court emphasized that while the gravity of the incidents was serious, it could not eclipse the constitutional demand for individualized assessment of necessity in pre-trial detention. Stringent conditions were imposed to secure their presence, prevent witness interference, and restrain public commentary. The Court clarified that the grant of bail did not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of allegations or amount to a finding on guilt, but represented a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion. The appeals were allowed, and bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Woman Accused – Article 21, Constitution of India – The Court also considered Gulfisha Fatima's status as a woman as a relevant factor in the proportionality assessment under Article 21 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Article 14, Constitution of India – The Court noted that the prosecution's evidentiary foundation against Gulfisha Fatima, including witness statements and electronic evidence, mirrored that against co-accused Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita, who were already on bail, thus invoking the principle of parity. The Court found that denying bail to Gulfisha Fatima in the absence of distinguishing material would constitute hostile discrimination, offending Article 14 [Paras 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 433].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy – UAPA – Individualized Assessment – The Court emphasized that in conspiracy cases, particularly under special statutes like UAPA, an individualized assessment of each accused's role, nature of involvement, and necessity of further detention is crucial. Differentiation is intrinsic to criminal adjudication and operates irrespective of the uniformity of charges framed. The Court must distinguish between conspiratorial centrality and mere association or peripheral presence. The law does not demand that every conspirator execute the terminal act; it demands a prima facie nexus between the accused and the unlawful design, inferred from cumulative conduct [Paras 74, 75, 76, 77, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 262, 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 321, 325, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356, 357, 358, 360, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 390, 392, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 421, 423, 424, 429, 430, 433, 437].

Criminal Law – Bail Conditions – UAPA – Safeguards – The Court imposed stringent conditions for the release on bail, including personal bonds, restrictions on leaving Delhi without permission, surrender of passports, furnishing residential and contact details, prohibition on contacting witnesses or participating in related activities, and abstention from public commentary on the case. These conditions were deemed substantive safeguards for national security, public order, and trial integrity [Paras 434, 435].

Decision: Appeal allowed for Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed – Appeal dismissed for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid – [Paras 431, 433].

Criminal Law - Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Sections 8(C) 18 and 29 - Appellant was arrested on 19th May 2020 for allegedly supplying 31 kg of opium and providing information leading to the recovery of 60 kg of opium hidden in a truck - High Court dismissed the second bail application on 4th February 2026 - Supreme Court observed that despite six years of pre-trial incarceration the trial had not yet begun and the prosecution intended to examine thirteen witnesses - Court noted that the delay in trial was without valid reason and further detention was not warranted - Held - Impugned judgment set aside - Appellant admitted to bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court - [Paras 1-11 and 17].

Criminal Law - Fundamental Rights - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to Speedy Trial - Conflict with Statutory Embargo - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 37(1)(b)(ii) - The court examined whether statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act can be overridden by constitutional guarantees - Relying on Rabi Prakash vs State of Odisha the court reiterated that prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right to life and liberty - Held - Conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act when there is undue delay in the trial process - [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law - Bail Conditions - Breach and Cancellation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437 and 439 - The court while granting bail imposed specific conditions including the prohibition of inducing or threatening witnesses and the requirement to diligently attend trial proceedings - Held - Trial court is at liberty to cancel bail in the event of any breach of terms and conditions or if the appellant abstains from proceedings without justifiable cause - [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – Trial court encouraged to expedite trial once witness action begins.

Environmental Law – Aravalli Hills and Ranges – Uniform Definition – Mining Activities – Ecological Protection – Court noted long-standing ecological significance of Aravallis as “green lungs” of North-Western India and impact of unchecked urbanisation and mining – Divergent definitions adopted by States led to regulatory inconsistencies – Court earlier directed constitution of an expert Committee to evolve a uniform definition – Committee’s report defining Aravalli Hills on elevation criteria of 100 metres and Aravalli Range on proximity of 500 metres accepted in judgment dated 20.11.2025 – Directions issued prohibiting new mining leases pending preparation of a Mining Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) [Paras 1–6].

Environmental Governance – Expert Committee Report – Judicial Review – Post-judgment Challenges – Multiple IAs and applications filed questioning scientific basis of the adopted definition and its implications – Court observed prima facie ambiguity and lack of clarity in the Committee Report and earlier judgment, particularly regarding ecological continuity, exclusion of low-lying hills, and possible regulatory gaps enabling unregulated mining – Public concern and criticism by environmentalists taken note of by Court [Paras 7–8].

Precautionary Principle – Need for Independent Expert Assessment – Court held that before implementation of Committee recommendations and earlier directions, an independent, impartial, high-powered expert opinion is necessary – Issues framed relating to narrowing of protected areas, treatment of inter-hill gaps beyond 500 metres, accuracy of elevation-based exclusion of hills, and long-term ecological consequences – Court proposed constitution of a High-Powered Expert Committee to undertake comprehensive scientific and ecological evaluation [Paras 9–10].

Mining Ban – Interim Protection – Aravalli Region – Exercise of Powers under Articles 32 and 142 – To prevent irreversible environmental harm, Court stayed implementation of Committee Report and judgment dated 20.11.2025 – Directed that no new mining leases or renewal of old leases shall be granted in Aravalli Hills and Ranges as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010 without prior permission of the Court – Stay to continue till further orders [Paras 12–13].

Decision:

Notice issued to Union of India and States of NCT of Delhi, Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujarat – Matter directed to be listed before the Green Bench – Recommendations of Committee and earlier judgment dated 20.11.2025 kept in abeyance – Absolute interim prohibition on grant or renewal of mining permissions in Aravalli Hills and Ranges without leave of Court – Ordered accordingly [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Law – IPC and ITPA - Child Trafficking – Minor Victim – Commercial Sexual Exploitation – Appellant convicted for keeping minor girl in rented premises for prostitution – Decoy operation by NGO workers led to rescue of minor – Testimony of minor victim (PW-13) found credible, consistent, and corroborated by witnesses PW-8, PW-11, PW-12 and seizure of condom and marked currency – Defence’s denial of relationship with victim rejected – Held: Offences under IPC and ITPA proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3–6, 8–13].

Victim Testimony – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court lays out principles for evaluating testimony of trafficked minors – Emphasized need for latitude and sensitivity due to victim’s socio-economic vulnerability, fear, trauma, and organised nature of crime – Held: Victim is not an accomplice – Sole credible testimony of minor victim sufficient for conviction – Reliance placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [Para 11].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Victim’s age proved as 16 years 6 months based on school certificate (Ex. P-3) issued by PW-7 (Headmaster) – Court reaffirmed that school records prevail over medical opinion – Ossification test not mandatory when documentary proof exists – Relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [Para 14].

Procedural Law – ITPA – Validity of Search – Compliance with Section 15(2) – Objection raised regarding absence of respectable woman from locality during raid – Court held that decoy witnesses (PW-8 and PW-12) were credible, and PW-14 (owner’s wife) was approached – Her hostility does not vitiate compliance – Reiterated that non-compliance with S. 15(2) is irregularity, not illegality, unless it causes prejudice – Conviction sustained [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and ITPA upheld – Statutory provisions substantially complied with – Testimony of victim reliable and corroborated – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of courts below [Para 19].

Environmental Law – Endangered Species – Habitat Conservation – Protection of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Petition under Article 32 sought urgent directions for the conservation of critically endangered GIB and LF species – Court affirmed the Expert Committee’s recommendation to designate revised priority areas in Rajasthan (14,013 sq. km) and Gujarat (740 sq. km) – Mitigation measures for conservation including habitat restoration, creation of enclosures, and predator control accepted – Ordered immediate implementation of in-situ and ex-situ conservation strategies, supported by long-term climate monitoring [Paras 1–6, 24–26, 32, 76].

Renewable Energy – Power Infrastructure – Undergrounding and Mitigation – Blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines lifted by Court’s March 2024 order – Expert Committee formed to assess area-specific solutions – Court accepted recommendations for undergrounding or rerouting powerlines (66kV and above), creation of powerline corridors, and limited exemptions for 11kV and below – Ordered that critical 250 km lines in Rajasthan be undergrounded within 2 years [Paras 14, 24, 44, 71, 76].

Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) – Efficacy and Scientific Scrutiny – Petitioners sought mandatory BFDs across all existing/future lines – Expert Committee concluded their efficacy for bustards is unproven and recommended pilot study by WII – Court agreed and directed Wildlife Division, MoEFCC to evaluate effectiveness through scientific studies and pilot projects before large-scale implementation [Paras 60–63, 76].

Corporate Environmental Responsibility – Expansion of CSR – Supreme Court declared that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under Section 135 of the Companies Act must include "Corporate Environmental Responsibility" – Affirmed that CSR funds can and should be used for GIB conservation – Ecocentric interpretation of statutory duties emphasized – Recognized corporations as duty-bearers under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution [Paras 35–40].

Public Interest vs. Development – Balancing Sustainability and Biodiversity – Court upheld the Committee’s calibrated approach balancing India’s climate commitments with species conservation – Restrictions on new solar projects (>2MW), new wind turbines, and overhead lines in Revised Priority Areas affirmed – Site-specific case-by-case mitigation adopted in lieu of blanket bans [Paras 14–15, 65–67, 76].

Decision: Writ Petition and Civil Appeal allowed in part – Expert Committee’s revised priority area designations accepted – Committee recommendations on conservation and mitigation to be implemented – 250 km of critical lines to be undergrounded within 2 years – Petitioners’ additional requests (such as expanding area to include Rasla enclave) rejected – All authorities directed to optimize transmission line corridors, enforce restrictions, and conduct further study on BFD efficacy [Paras 76–77].

Service Law – Regularization – Ad-hoc Appointments – Discrimination – Appellants appointed to Class III posts in High Court as Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants under powers of Chief Justice – Though similarly situated persons were regularized, appellants denied such benefit citing their appointments were ad-hoc – Held: All categories of appointees were appointed through same channel under Rules 8(a)(i), 41 and 45 of 1976 Rules – Mere difference in wording of appointment orders not sufficient ground to treat them differently – Distinction drawn by administrative committee was arbitrary and violated Article 14 – Directions issued under Article 142 for reinstatement and regularization [Paras 23–28, 30–34].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Arbitrary Discrimination – Supreme Court held that all appointees appointed through same legal authority and performing same duties must be treated equally – Classification based on labels such as "ad-hoc" or absence of examination clause in appointment letters is irrational when nature of work and source of power are identical – Denial of regularization violated principles of non-arbitrariness [Paras 24–29].

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Appellants rendered over a decade of service before discontinuation – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to restore their services and direct regularization with consequential benefits (excluding back wages), overriding technical objections of procedural limitations or rule amendments – Relief restricted to facts of this case [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court orders set aside – Appellants to be reinstated and regularized with all consequential benefits (excluding salary for non-working period) – Compliance directed within 8 weeks – Relief not to be treated as precedent [Paras 34–36].