Environmental Law – Ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Review Allowed – The Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India dated 16.05.2025 which had declared the 2017 Notification and 2021 Office Memorandum ultra vires – Court held that the earlier ruling failed to consider binding precedents (D. Swamy, Pahwa Plastics, Alembic, Electrosteel Steels) and took a narrow view inconsistent with environmental jurisprudence – Further, Court noted that indiscriminate demolition of thousands of projects undertaken in public interest, including hospitals and public housing, would cause greater ecological damage and economic loss – Held: Ex post facto EC may be granted subject to stringent environmental safeguards and penalties as contemplated under the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM [Paras 114–127, 141–142].

Public Interest – Demolition vs Environmental Protection – Balancing Approach – Court held that the Vanashakti judgment would have led to indiscriminate demolition of completed and near-complete infrastructure projects, including those sanctioned by public bodies – Relying on judgments in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha and Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda, Court emphasized that post facto regularisation with safeguards may, in certain circumstances, better serve the environment and public interest than demolition and reconstruction – Held: A rigid approach risks economic waste and increased pollution [Paras 123–126, 128–140].

Environmental Jurisprudence – Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Vanashakti held per incuriam – Earlier judgment failed to consider binding coordinate Bench rulings in D. Swamy and Pahwa Plastics, which upheld the validity of the 2017 Notification and 2021 OM – Supreme Court reaffirmed that coordinate Benches must follow binding precedent or refer to a larger Bench – Held: Vanashakti judgment disregarded this principle and was liable to be recalled [Paras 121–122].

Judicial Discipline – Article 141 – Coordinate Bench Conflict – Court reiterated that if a two-Judge Bench disagrees with an earlier two-Judge Bench decision, it must refer the matter to a larger Bench – The Vanashakti judgment violated this principle by departing from binding precedents without reference – Held: Error on the face of the record warranting recall under review jurisdiction [Para 122].

Environmental Law – Ex post facto EC – Dissent – Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, holding that the concept of ex post facto EC is alien to environmental jurisprudence and contrary to precautionary principle – Dismissed the review plea, stating that economic loss or administrative hardship cannot override the statutory requirement of prior EC – Held: 2006 EIA Notification mandates prior EC, and post facto clearances cannot be legitimised under guise of public interest [Dissenting Opinion, Paras 1–43].

Decision: Review Petition Allowed – Judgment dated 16.05.2025 in Vanashakti v. Union of India recalled – Writ petitions and appeals restored to file for fresh consideration – Matter to be placed before Chief Justice of India for further orders on administrative side.

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Parity with Similar Landowners – Appellants’ lands acquired for setting up MIDC Jintur in the 1990s – Compensation originally fixed at ₹32,000 per Acre – Reference Court enhanced it but High Court reversed enhancement – Supreme Court held appellants similarly situated to those in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Compensation enhanced to ₹58,320 per Acre with statutory benefits [Paras 4-14, 16(iv)-(v)]

Comparable Sale Instances – Deduction for Small Plots – Reference Court had rightly considered ten sale exemplars from Jintur town – Court upheld 20% deduction from highest exemplar rate (₹72,900/Acre) – Held: Enhanced rate ₹58,320 per Acre applicable to appellants – Location near highway and N.A. potentiality validated by documentary evidence [Paras 10-13]

Non-Agricultural Potential – Evidence of Proximity – Land found near Nashik–Nirmal State Highway, adjacent to Jintur town, with irrigation and water sources – Claims of remoteness by MIDC rejected – Held: High Court erred in reversing Reference Court's award [Paras 10-12]

Delay in Appeal – Interest Denied for Delay Period – Though appeal allowed, interest on enhanced compensation not granted for period of delay in filing SLPs as per earlier notice orders [Paras 15-16(v)]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court and Reference Court judgments set aside – Compensation enhanced – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act to follow – Interest denied for delay period [Paras 16(i)-(v)]

CRIMINAL LAW – SECTION 482 CrPC – QUASHING – ABUSE OF PROCESS – SECOND COMPLAINT ON SAME FACTS – Held: Filing a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC by the same informant against the same accused regarding the same occurrence, after a negative final report had already been submitted and accepted by the court, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant cannot improve their case or bypass the earlier negative report merely by adding a new offence (Section 308 IPC) or invoking a private complaint after a significant delay (2.5 years) without having filed a protest petition against the original negative report. – Proceedings quashed.

CRIMINAL LAW – SECTION 154 & 200 CrPC – MAINTAINABILITY OF SECOND FIR/COMPLAINT – TEST OF SAMENESS – Held: Relying on Surender Kaushik & Ors. v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that while rival versions of the same incident may justify a second FIR, a second complaint by the same complainant against the same accused for the same incident is prohibited. The concept of "sameness" bars a subsequent complaint intended to improve upon the facts of the original complaint. The ratio in Surender Kaushik actually supports the quashing of such vexatious proceedings where the spectrum of allegations remains identical.

CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – LIBERTY OF ACCUSED – Held: Where accused persons were named in the initial FIR but dropped from the investigation (negative report), dragging them into a second complaint for the same occurrence implicates the liberty of the person and raises questions of double jeopardy.

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate qua the appellants are quashed.

Arbitration – Post-Award Interest – Commercial Loan Recovery – Arbitral award granting 24% interest upheld – Borrower (appellant) challenged arbitral award on ground of usurious and unconscionable interest – Arbitrator’s discretion in granting 24% post-award interest found valid – Held: Arbitrator has discretion to award post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Statutory rate of 18% applies only in absence of specific direction in award – Challenge under Section 34 rightly rejected; re-appreciation of evidence not permissible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 11, 31, 36-39, 42, 44-46, 56-57].

Arbitration Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(b) – Post-award interest – Scope and interpretation – Discretion of arbitrator not controlled by contract – Clause (b) does not allow parties to “contract out” post-award interest – Arbitrator may fix rate, and if not fixed, statutory rate of 18% applies – Public policy ground under Section 34(2)(b) narrowly construed – Award of 24% post-award interest in commercial transaction not against public policy [Paras 33-39, 49-53].

Loan Transaction – High-Interest Commercial Loan – NBFC charging 24% interest on loan extended to defaulting borrower – Loan used to settle pre-existing debt – Rate justified due to high risk – Contention that agreement was signed on blank documents found untenable – Arbitrator and High Court concurrently found interest clause genuine – No merit in claim under Usurious Loans Act, 1918 – NBFCs not governed by State interest control statutes [Paras 5, 7, 25-27, 45, 54-55].

Arbitration – Section 34 and Section 37 – Limited scope of judicial interference – Courts below rightly refused to set aside award – Findings on facts including interest rate and validity of loan agreements cannot be re-examined – Error in law or high interest rate alone not grounds for interference – Concurrent findings of arbitrator and High Court upheld [Paras 12, 15, 29, 46].

Insolvency Proceedings – Non-payment of arbitral award led to initiation of CIRP under IBC – No resolution plan received – Liquidation followed – Recovery through liquidation much below awarded sum – Justifies award of interest and supports lender’s right to enforce full claim [Paras 13-14, 48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – Interest at 24% per annum confirmed – No interference warranted under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act – No violation of public policy or fundamental principles of Indian law found [Paras 56-57].

Criminal Trial – Murder – Identification Evidence – Dock Identification After 8½ Years – Invalid TIP – Procedural Irregularities in Video-Conference Testimony – Recovery Not Connected to the Crime – Bloodstains Not Matched – Hostile/Infirm Evidence – Held: Conviction unsustainable; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accused acquitted [Paras 51–56, 57–66, 67–69, 70–72].

Identification Evidence – Reliability of Sole Eye-Witness – Dock Identification After Long Delay – Weak Eyesight – Video-Conferencing Deposition – Held Unsafe - Eye-witness PW-18 identified the appellant through video conferencing after an inordinate delay of nearly 8½ years, despite admitting weak eyesight, age-related infirmity, and absence of spectacles during deposition – material improvements in testimony (e.g., introduction of black shirt, introduction of “chheni” not mentioned in Section 161 statement) undermined credibility – witness denied presence in any TIP despite prosecution claim – Held: Dock identification in these circumstances wholly unreliable and unsafe for sustaining conviction [Paras 35–44, 50–56].

Test Identification Parade – Failure of Prosecution to Prove Sanctity – TIP Documents Do Not Contain Signature of Witness – No Proof Witness Attended TIP – Accused’s Face Not Kept Baparda – Refusal Cannot Lead to Adverse Inference - Arrest memo did not record accused’s face as muffled; recovery memoranda also silent – TIP alleged to have been fixed on 24.12.2008 but witness categorically stated she never attended Court or hospital after 25.12.2008 – TIP judge’s (PW-12) deposition showed witness was not produced; documents bore no signature of identifying witness – Held: Entire TIP exercise invalid; refusal to participate loses significance; adverse inference cannot be drawn [Paras 57–66].

Video-Conference Examination – Confrontation With Previous Statements – Mandatory Procedure Under Ss. 147–148 BSA / Ss. 144–145 Evidence Act – Directions Issued - Trial court failed to enable confrontation of the witness with her previous statement (Exh. PW-17/A) owing to limitations of video-conferencing – crucial contradictions remained untested – Supreme Court issued mandatory directions requiring electronic transmission of documents to witnesses in all future video-conference examinations to preserve fairness of trial and cross-examination integrity [Paras 42–49].

Recovery Evidence – Human Blood on Pant – Serology Report “No Reaction” – Recovery of ‘Chheni’ from Open Area – No Identification – Articles Not Identified at Trial – Held Inadmissible to Prove Guilt - Pant recovered from open bushes allegedly at appellant’s instance contained human blood but serology report recorded “no reaction”, thus no match with deceased or scene – recovery of chheni after 22 days from open bushes, with no independent witnesses and never shown to PW-18 – robbed articles allegedly recovered were never identified in court; witness son who identified in TIP not examined – Held: Recoveries fail to connect accused with offence; cannot sustain conviction [Paras 67–69].

Concurrent Findings – When Interference Justified – Misreading of Evidence – Perverse Appreciation – Miscarriage of Justice - Given defective identification, unreliable witness, invalid TIP, and inconclusive recoveries, the Court held that findings of trial court and High Court suffered from serious misreading of evidence resulting in grave miscarriage of justice – interference warranted under Article 136 [Paras 31–33, 70–72].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Having remained in custody for 15½ years, directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 70–72].

BNSS – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – Dacoity Allegation – Absence of Dishonest Intention – All property returned – FIR lodged against unknown persons – High Court erred in sustaining Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity) despite quashing other offences – Held: Allegations do not satisfy ingredients of theft/robbery/dacoity; entire FIR quashed under Article 142 [Paras 9–15].

Quashing of FIR – Inherent Powers – Compromise – Single Transaction – High Court Wrong in Partially Quashing FIR - High Court quashed offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS but retained Section 310(2) BNS (dacoity) – Supreme Court held the entire incident formed a single inseparable transaction, and once compromise was accepted for all other offences, there was no justification to sustain only the charge of dacoity – partial quashing untenable [Paras 12–14].

Dacoity – Ingredients – Requirement of Dishonest Intention – Absence of Theft or Robbery – FIR Shows Purpose Was Only Retrieval of Particular Files - FIR itself disclosed that 6–7 persons entered the school premises searching for Engineering/BAMS files – no weapons used – no serious injury inflicted – materials (cash, cheque book, computer, letterheads) were only taken incidentally and immediately returned – complainant confirmed full restitution and no injury – Held: No “dishonest intention” under Section 303 BNS; hence no theft → no robbery → no dacoity [Paras 9–11].

Compromise – Voluntary Affidavit by Complainant – Full Restitution – No Harm Caused – Proceedings Should Not Continue

Complainant’s affidavit confirmed:

• All property returned (money, cheque book, letterheads, stamps, files, computer).

• No injury caused to anyone.

• Dispute amicably resolved with the accused.

Held: Ingredients of dacoity no longer survive; FIR continuation would be an abuse of process [Paras 8–10].

Exercise of Power Under Article 142 – To Prevent Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed in Entirety - Since allegations did not disclose the primary ingredients of dacoity, and compromise restored status quo ante, Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to “secure complete justice” and quashed FIR C.R. No. 270/2024 entirely, including proceedings under Section 310(2) BNS [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – FIR C.R. No. 270/2024 and all proceedings quashed in entirety under Article 142 of the Constitution – Pending applications disposed [Paras 15–17].

Environmental Restoration – Corbett Tiger Reserve – CEC Supervision – Restitutive Principles – Polluter Pays – Precautionary Principle – Ecocentrism – Expert Committee report accepted – State of Uttarakhand directed to submit restoration plan, demolish unauthorised structures, and comply within time-bound schedule – Restoration to be supervised by CEC – Native species only; no alien introductions – Quantification dispute (Rs 29.8 Cr) not adjudicated due to pending CBI trial – State permitted to recover proportionate restoration costs from delinquent officers after departmental proceedings [Paras 44.1–44.6].

Tiger Safaris – Prohibition in Core/Critical Habitat – Conditional Permission in Buffer/Fringe – Tiger Safaris absolutely barred in core/critical tiger habitats under proviso to Section 33(a) and Section 38-V(4) – Allowed only on non-forest or degraded forest land in buffer areas not forming part of tiger corridors – Safari permissible only with full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for conflict/injured/orphaned tigers – Sourcing of animals only from the same landscape; 2019 NTCA Guidelines contrary to this stand quashed earlier – NTCA 2019 Guidelines to be followed with additional safeguards – Field Director to control management – Earnings to be ploughed back into Tiger Conservation Foundations – Enclosure design requires CZA approval – Zero waste water discharge – Electric/Solar vehicles preferred – No interaction between captive and wild populations [Paras 45–46].

Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) – Mandatory for All Tiger Reserves – All States directed to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves (buffer + fringe area at minimum) within 1 year – ESZ safeguards under 2011 Notification applicable in full – Minimum 1 km ban on mining from buffer/tiger habitat boundary – ESZ must mirror MoEF&CC letter dated 23 April 2018 – Same permitted/prohibited activity matrix as per 2011 ESZ Notification to apply [Para 47.1].

Permitted/Prohibited Activities – Buffer/Fringe Areas – Prohibited: commercial mining, saw mills, polluting industries, commercial firewood use, major hydroelectric projects, exotic species, hazardous substances, low-flying aircraft (<300m), waste discharge, illegal felling – Regulated: hotels/resorts as per TCP, water use, fencing, road widening, night vehicular movement, hill/riverbank protection – TCP must demarcate tourism zones; tourism infra only on non-forest land; must align with ESZ Master Plans [Paras 47.2–47.2.3].

Resorts Near Protected Areas – Strict Conditions – Only eco-friendly resorts in buffer zones; prohibited in corridors – Homestays/community-run facilities encouraged – Mandatory zero-waste – Ban on mobile phones in core-tourism zones – Vehicular carrying capacity norms to be enforced – Total ban on night tourism – Restrictions on roads cutting through core habitats (night ban except emergencies) [Para 48].

Noise Regulation – Silence Zones – Entire Tiger Reserve area including ESZs to be declared Silence Zones within 3 months – State/Central Governments to similarly notify all Protected Areas and ESZs under Forest Acts as Silence Zones [Para 49].

Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) – Core/Buffer Notification – Steering Committees – All States must notify core and buffer areas within 6 months – TCPs to be framed within 3 months; no financial assistance unless TCP approved – Steering Committees to be constituted within 2 months and meet at least twice a year – NTCA to monitor TCP compliance and functioning of Steering Committees – NTCA tourism guidelines including total ban on night tourism to apply [Paras 50.1–50.2].

Human Resource Reforms – Forest Cadres – Staffing – Allowances – Insurance – Safety – Special Cell of MoEF&CC + CEC to assess cadre requirements within 1 year; States to fill vacancies accordingly – No outsourcing of core forest functions – Mandatory wildlife-trained officers; no vacant Field Director posts – Military-style benefits recommended including retention of accommodation, medals, allowances equivalent to paramilitary forces – Family housing at remote postings; improved camp infrastructure; separate facilities for women staff – Medical care, Ayushman Bharat coverage, and insurance for all staff including daily wagers – Ex-gratia for death/injury in line of duty – Dedicated cadres for veterinarians, wildlife biologists, sociologists – Continuous capacity building essential [Paras 50.3.1–50.3.3].

Funding Framework – Tiger Conservation Foundations – SOP for Budgeting – MoEF&CC, NTCA, CEC directed to formulate policy framework and SOP for funding within 6 months – TCFs to receive financial assistance directly – Revenues to be reinvested in Reserves [Para 50.4].

Human–Wildlife Conflict – Model Guidelines – NTCA to prepare Model Guidelines incorporating compensation, coordination, disaster-labeling, and uniform ex-gratia (Rs 10 lakh) within 6 months – States to implement within 6 months thereafter – Rapid response “Green Commandos” recommended [Para 50.5].

Green Infrastructure – Gati Shakti Portal – Mitigation Measures – Avoidance principle paramount – All Tiger Reserve, corridor, PA, ESZ data to be uploaded on Gati Shakti – All linear infrastructure must follow WII, NTCA, NBWL mitigation – Transmission lines to be insulated/underground where feasible [Para 50.6].

Religious Tourism – Regulation Inside Reserves – States/MoEF&CC to issue rules within 6 months – Movement of devotees through core areas to be regulated; eco-friendly vehicles; no pedestrian routes; no new constructions – Cooking prohibited except small prasad on solar stoves – Managing committees to include Field Director, District Collector, SP (as invitees only) [Paras 50.7–51].

Applicability – Limited Flexibility – Directions apply to all Tiger Reserves pan-India; States allowed minor modifications only with WII and NTCA consultation [Para 52].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Eyewitness – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery from accessible place and broken chain of custody – Motive unproved – FSL correlation insufficient – Acquittal restored – Conviction set aside [Paras 13, 16, 17, 21–24].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Eyewitness – Evidentiary Value – FIR naming “unknown persons” – Subsequent naming of accused in supplementary statement – Eyewitness (PW-1) and first responder (PW-5) turned hostile and denied presence of accused – No identification parade conducted – Held: Prosecution failed to establish presence or identity of accused at the scene of crime – Hostile testimony destroys substratum of prosecution case [Paras 12–13].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Scope of “distinctly relates to the fact discovered” – Disclosure statement must clearly relate to weapon used in the crime – Accused’s disclosure did not state that recovered pistol was the same used in murder – Observed: Recovery statement did not satisfy statutory test of “distinctly” connecting weapon to offence – Cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Arms Act – Weapon seized from unlocked iron box in room accessible to family members – No independent witness to recovery – Memo shows box was open; articles not exclusively within control of accused – Held: Recovery from accessible location weakens probative value; cannot singularly constitute incriminating circumstance – Chain of custody from Malkhana to FSL not proved – Gap of 19 days unexplained – Seal T2 insufficient to establish identity of recovered article [Paras 16–17, 23].

Circumstantial Evidence – FSL Report – Bullets found in body matched cartridges said to be recoverable by seized pistol – But prosecution failed to establish unbroken chain connecting recovery, storage, and deposit – Identification of weapon not satisfactorily proved – FSL match alone cannot establish guilt when link evidence is broken – Held: FSL report cannot substitute foundational proof [Paras 16, 23].

Motive – Co-accused (family members) discharged or acquitted – No independent evidence showing motive against appellant except alleged friendship with acquitted co-accused – Alleged quid pro quo speculative and unproven – Held: Motive wholly unestablished; cannot support conviction in absence of other evidence [Paras 14, 22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Recovery doubtful; eyewitnesses hostile; motive unproved; no last-seen evidence – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting appellant solely on recovery-based theory supported by FSL report – Acquittal directed [Paras 22–25].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Remand – Respondent-husband’s divorce petition was initially dismissed by the trial court – High Court reversed the finding and granted divorce on ground of cruelty based solely on oral testimony of the husband – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider key questions including whether the appellant-wife was thrown out or voluntarily left matrimonial home, and whether earlier withdrawal of cruelty petition barred second on same cause – Held: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 2-4, 6-7]

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Evaluation of Evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that before granting divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown or cruelty, the Court must undertake a comprehensive analysis of conduct, social background, and responsibility for separation – High Court failed to conduct such exercise – Remand ordered [Paras 4-6]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Judicial Approach – Court cautioned against using irretrievable breakdown as a blanket ground for divorce without attributing responsibility for breakdown – Importance of examining which party caused the separation and consequences on the child stressed – Held: Determination must be rooted in evidence and fairness [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication by High Court – Parties directed to appear before High Court on 24.11.2025 [Paras 7-8]