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].

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].

Electricity Law -  Tariff – Challenge to Regulatory Asset Practice – Supreme Court Issues Mandate for Time-Bound Liquidation – The petitioners, Delhi-based electricity distribution companies, challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s continued creation of regulatory assets without structured recovery – Supreme Court held that this violated statutory provisions under the Electricity Act and Policy directives under the National Tariff Policy – Creation of regulatory assets is permissible only in exceptional circumstances with a clear amortisation plan – Indefinite deferment impacts financial viability and transparency in tariff setting – Held: DERC’s conduct unjustified – Court issued binding directions for time-bound liquidation, prohibited further creation without strict conditions, and ordered monitoring through an independent committee [Paras 1–4, 15, 32–38, 75–80].

Tariff Determination – Regulatory Mandate of SERCs – Sections 61, 62, 64 and 86 of the Electricity Act – SERCs must determine tariffs that ensure recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable time – Held: Cost-reflective tariffs are essential for DISCOM sustainability – Failure by DERC to ensure timely recovery led to accumulation of regulatory assets and severe financial strain – Non-compliance with statutory provisions warrants judicial intervention [Paras 40–46, 49–54].

Regulatory Assets – Clause 8.2.2 of National Tariff Policy – To be Created Only in Exceptional Situations – The Policy permits regulatory assets where tariffs cannot be increased due to unavoidable reasons – Held: DERC’s prolonged and recurring creation of such assets contravened the mandate of exceptionality – Absence of a clear amortisation plan and structured recovery roadmap is illegal and unsustainable – Recovery must occur within three years as per policy [Paras 34–38, 55–61].

Maintainability – Writ Jurisdiction Despite Alternative Remedy – DERC contended that petitions were not maintainable due to alternate appellate remedies before APTEL – Held: Petitions concern persistent failure of statutory duties by a regulator with widespread consequences for public interest and power sector – Judicial review under Article 32 and 136 maintainable in such exceptional circumstances [Paras 48–49].

Consumer Interest vs. Financial Sustainability – Balancing Mandate under Electricity Act – Regulatory Commissions must balance consumer protection with financial viability of licensees – Held: While protecting tariff affordability, commissions must not allow indefinite postponement of recovery – Sustained under-recovery affects power supply reliability, investor confidence, and overall energy infrastructure [Paras 51–54, 68–70].

Regulatory Accountability – DERC’s Disregard of Directions – Despite specific orders from APTEL and the Supreme Court in earlier matters, DERC failed to implement amortisation plans or comply with mandates – Held: This constitutes systemic regulatory failure – DERC must be held accountable – Monitoring of compliance is essential to ensure transparency and discipline in future tariff processes [Paras 55–61, 68–74].

Final Directions – Supreme Court Mandates Time-bound Liquidation – DERC directed to publish and implement a phased amortisation roadmap – Tariff Orders to reflect realistic cost recovery – Creation of new regulatory assets not permitted unless strict conditions of Clause 8.2.2 are satisfied – Independent Monitoring Committee to oversee and report on progress every six months – Next tariff determination process to account for legacy gaps and recovery charges [Paras 75–80].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence – Parameters under Section 389 CrPC – Grant of Bail after Conviction under POCSO Act – Order Set Aside – The appeal by the father of the prosecutrix challenged the High Court's order suspending the sentence of Respondent No.2, convicted under Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC – The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider relevant factors required for suspension of sentence, including the nature of offence, gravity, and antecedents of the accused, and instead relied on inadequate reasons like lack of medical signs and non-availability of FSL/DNA reports, which do not outweigh the ocular evidence and legal presumptions under POCSO – Held: The order of the High Court suspending sentence and granting bail is unsustainable and is set aside [Paras 5, 10, 12, 15, 16].

POCSO Conviction – Evidentiary Value of Victim's Testimony – Corroborative Forensic Evidence Not Mandatory – The Trial Court's reliance on the testimony of the minor prosecutrix, supported by documentary evidence regarding age, and presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was upheld – Non-availability of FSL/DNA report does not vitiate conviction where ocular and documentary evidence suffice – High Court's approach ignoring this principle was found to be erroneous [Paras 6-9, 16].

Distinction between Setting Aside Bail and Cancellation of Bail – Justifiability of Bail Order – The Court clarified the distinction between setting aside bail due to improper exercise of judicial discretion, and cancellation of bail for supervening misconduct – In the present case, the order was set aside for lack of soundness in the bail grant and not for breach of conditions [Paras 13, 14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's Order Suspending Sentence Set Aside – Respondent No.2 Directed to Surrender – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order suspending sentence, and directed the respondent to surrender before the Special Judge (POCSO) Karauli, Rajasthan, by 30th August 2025, failing which the State shall take the respondent into custody [Para 19].

Motor Accident Compensation – Determination of Income – Inclusion of Allowances – The Tribunal and High Court erred by excluding allowances from computation of deceased’s monthly income, considering only basic pay – Supreme Court held that salary slip (Ex. P6) evidences income of Rs. 6,500/- per month including allowances, and there was no contrary evidence that allowances were not regularly received or for family benefit – Held: Allowances should be included for computation of income, and Rs. 6,500/- per month adopted as monthly income [Paras 15-18].

Future Prospects and Multiplier – Application of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi – The Court applied 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses, added 50% towards future prospects (as deceased was 35 years old), and applied a multiplier of 16 as per the settled law – Loss of dependency thus calculated at Rs. 12,48,000/- (6,500 x 12 x 16) [Paras 19].

Conventional Heads – Award under Pranay Sethi and Magma – The Court awarded Rs. 18,150/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs. 48,400/- to wife as spousal consortium, and Rs. 48,400/- each to the two minor children as parental consortium, strictly in line with Supreme Court precedents [Para 20].

Interest and Apportionment – Delay in Appeal – Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 14,29,500/- with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing till deposit, excluding delay period – Compensation apportioned 50:25:25 among the claimants with appropriate safeguards for minors – Directions given for release and deposit of awarded amounts [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 14,29,500/- with applicable interest and apportioned as directed – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Para 21-22].

Motor Accident Claim – Enhancement of Compensation – Contributory Negligence, Future Prospects, and Functional Disability – Supreme Court Enhances Award – Appeal by injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for permanent disability sustained in a motor vehicle accident – The Court affirmed the finding of 20% contributory negligence, but found error in the omission of future prospects and in adopting a lower percentage of disability – Held: Appellant entitled to 40% addition for future prospects (self-employed), and functional disability fixed at 41.77% based on unchallenged medical evidence – Total compensation recalculated and enhanced to ₹16,60,891/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till payment, after deduction for contributory negligence; insurer directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks [Paras 4-11].

Future Prospects for Self-Employed – Law Settled – Supreme Court reiterates that self-employed claimants are entitled to future prospects as laid down in Santosh Devi and Pranay Sethi – 40% added to income for calculation of loss of future earning capacity [Para 7].

Assessment of Functional Disability – Medical Evidence Paramount – The unchallenged evidence of the neuropsychologist (PW3) assessing neuro-behavioural and cognitive disability at 41.77% accepted as functional disability, rejecting arbitrary reduction by Tribunal and High Court – Compensation for loss of future earning capacity recalculated accordingly [Para 8].

Computation and Apportionment – Calculation of compensation detailed under all heads, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant and conveyance, loss of income during treatment, and loss of amenities – Contributory negligence deduction applied – Directions for prompt deposit and disbursal to claimant [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Compensation enhanced to ₹16,60,891/- with interest; directions issued for compliance – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 11-13].

Civil Writ – PIL - Right to Education – Inclusion of Orphans as Disadvantaged Group under RTE Act – Mandate to States for Compliance – Petitioner-in-person highlighted the exclusion of orphans from the 25% quota for disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act – Court recognized orphans as disadvantaged due to lack of parental care and directed States/UTs to identify orphan children admitted under RTE provisions and those excluded – Ordered admission of eligible orphans in neighbourhood schools under the 25% quota and directed filing of compliance affidavits – Held: State, as parens patriae, must ensure orphans are not deprived of their fundamental right to free and compulsory education [Paras 5–10].

Child Welfare – Policy Directives for Orphan Welfare – PIL Seeks Extensive Reliefs – Petitioner sought multiple directions for orphan welfare, including reservation in education and jobs, access to government schemes, removal of legislative inconsistencies, enhanced funding, and systemic reforms – Court took note of extensive prayers and emphasized need for a coordinated national response – Directed States that have not issued notifications for inclusion of orphans under RTE 25% quota to do so or explain reasons via affidavit – Acknowledged progressive steps taken by Delhi, Gujarat, Odisha, Sikkim, and others [Paras 4, 11–14].

Public Interest Litigation – Orphan Rights – Recognition and Protection under Constitutional and Statutory Framework – Petition invoked Article 32 seeking enforcement of fundamental rights of orphan children – Court recognized orphan children as a distinct class needing focused protection – Affirmed State’s obligation to ensure equality and protection from discrimination, and called for uniformity in policy implementation across States – Directed survey and data collection to be completed within four weeks [Paras 2–3, 6–9].

Decision – Directions Issued to Union and State Governments – Compliance Mandated within Four Weeks – Court issued specific directions to conduct surveys of orphan admissions under the RTE Act and reasons for non-admissions – States required to issue necessary notifications or submit explanations – Matter to be listed for further compliance on 09/09/2025 [Paras 10, 12–15].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence – Standards of Proof – Supreme Court Orders Acquittal – Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 IPC for alleged drowning of minor children by their mother – The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested solely on the testimony of a single witness (PW-2), whose evidence was found to be unreliable and substantially improved from earlier statements – No other credible evidence connected the appellant to the crime and the Rickshaw Puller, allegedly a key witness, was not examined – Held: The chain of circumstances was incomplete, and the conviction was based on conjectures and surmises, not legal proof beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith [Paras 1-15].

Circumstantial Evidence – Five Golden Principles – The Court reiterated that, for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the chain must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof – Applied the law laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 [Paras 6-7].

Reliability of Single Witness – Evidence Must Be Wholly Reliable – Reaffirmed that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness only if it is wholly reliable; where witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, corroboration is necessary – Cited Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 [Paras 11-12].

Acquittal – Conviction Set Aside for Lack of Reliable Evidence – Where main prosecution witness was unreliable and other evidence was lacking, conviction could not be sustained – Appellant acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgments of the High Court and Trial Court Quashed and Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Paras 15-16].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Forged Settlement Agreement – Decree Set Aside – Alleged Fraudulent Compromise – The petitioner obtained a favorable decree from the Supreme Court in terms of an alleged settlement agreement dated 24.10.2024, resulting in the setting aside of concurrent findings by three lower courts dismissing a suit for specific performance – Respondent filed a Miscellaneous Application alleging he never entered into the said settlement or engaged any counsel in the Supreme Court – Held: Prima facie case of fraud established, Supreme Court recalled its earlier order dated 13.12.2024 and restored the appeal – Bar Council of India directed to conduct inquiry into the involvement of advocates and authenticity of representation [Paras 3-4, 6-7].

Fraud on Court – Unauthorized Representation – Caveat Abuse – Order Recalled – Respondent alleged unauthorized filing of caveat and fraudulent appearance of counsels – Court noted discrepancies in appearance records and denials by advocates – Ordered detailed inquiry into the conduct and role of the advocates, and reserved further directions, including criminal proceedings – Restored SLP to file for fresh hearing [Paras 4-6].

Professional Misconduct – Bar Council of India Inquiry – Supreme Court expressed serious concern over possible misconduct and unethical practices in representing parties without authority – Directed Bar Council to complete inquiry and submit report by October 2025 – Case listed for further proceedings in November 2025 [Para 7].

Final Decision – Order dated 13.12.2024 recalled – Civil Appeal No. 14414/2024 restored to file – Bar Council of India directed to submit report – Case to be listed for further hearing in November 2025 [Para 8].