Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15, 21 — Prison administration — Right to life and dignity of prisoners — Rehabilitative justice — Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) as constitutional instruments of reform. (Paras 33–42, 74–76) This Court reaffirmed that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights and that Article 21 guarantees prisoners the right to live with dignity, including access to reformative and rehabilitative avenues. Open Correctional Institutions, premised on graded liberty, trust and self-discipline, are constitutionally aligned mechanisms for decongestion, reformation and reintegration. Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21 obliges the State to operationalise reformative penology through effective establishment, expansion and humane governance of Open Correctional Institutions; prison administration must be rehabilitation-oriented and equality-compliant.

Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15, 21 — Prison administration — Right to life and dignity of prisoners — Rehabilitative justice — Open Correctional Institutions (OCIs) as constitutional instruments of reform. (Paras 33–42, 74–76)

This Court reaffirmed that incarceration does not extinguish fundamental rights and that Article 21 guarantees prisoners the right to live with dignity, including access to reformative and rehabilitative avenues. Open Correctional Institutions, premised on graded liberty, trust and self-discipline, are constitutionally aligned mechanisms for decongestion, reformation and reintegration.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21 obliges the State to operationalise reformative penology through effective establishment, expansion and humane governance of Open Correctional Institutions; prison administration must be rehabilitation-oriented and equality-compliant.

---

Prison Overcrowding — Under-utilisation of Open Correctional Institutions — Duty of States and Union Territories — Judicial enforcement of reformative framework. (Paras 45–48, 73–74)

Despite prior directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, existing OCIs remained substantially under-utilised and several States/UTs lacked such facilities altogether. The Court held that failure to utilise or establish OCIs defeats both reformative objectives and constitutional mandates. States/UTs were directed to assess feasibility, frame time-bound protocols, fill vacancies, and expand infrastructure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where empirical material demonstrates chronic overcrowding and simultaneous under-utilisation of OCIs, States are constitutionally obligated to establish, expand and optimally utilise open correctional infrastructure through structured, time-bound measures.

---

Gender Equality in Prison Administration — Exclusion of women from OCIs — Violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 — Mandate for gender-sensitive inclusion. (Paras 49–54, 110–112)

Several States excluded women prisoners from eligibility for OCIs or failed to operationalise transfer despite legal permissibility. Relying upon constitutional equality guarantees and international norms (Nelson Mandela Rules; Bangkok Rules), the Court held such exclusion to be impermissible. States were directed to restructure capacity, amend rules, and ensure timely transfer of eligible women prisoners.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial or exclusion of women prisoners from access to Open Correctional Institutions constitutes gender discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) and infringes the right to dignity under Article 21; States must ensure gender-sensitive and non-discriminatory access.

---

Eligibility Criteria — Rigid incarceration thresholds — Need for individualised reformative assessment — Prohibition against labour-camp model. (Paras 55–61, 113–117)

Stringent requirements of 4–21 years of prior incarceration and agriculture-centric functioning diluted the reformative character of OCIs. The Court mandated rationalisation of eligibility criteria based on reformative potential and institutional conduct, diversification of vocational training, fair wages, healthcare, banking access, education, grievance redressal and family integration.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for transfer to OCIs must be based on individualised reformative assessment rather than rigid temporal thresholds; OCIs must function as structured rehabilitation centres and not as custodial labour camps.

---

Uniform Standards — Fragmented governance across States — Constitution of High-Powered Committee for Common Minimum Standards. (Paras 62–65, 118–126)

Noting disparities in eligibility norms, wages, healthcare, family integration and discipline, the Court directed constitution of a High-Powered Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court to formulate Common Minimum Standards for governance of OCIs, harmonise practices, and recommend systemic reforms.

Ratio Decidendi: To secure equality and uniform constitutional compliance in prison administration, nationally consistent Common Minimum Standards for Open Correctional Institutions are necessary and may be judicially mandated through expert institutional mechanisms.

---

Cost-Effectiveness of OCIs — Fiscal prudence and administrative sustainability — Expansion mandated. (Paras 66–72, 127–129)

Empirical data from Rajasthan demonstrated stark cost differentials: per-prisoner per-day expenditure of approximately Rs.333.12 in closed prisons versus Rs.49.60 in open prisons. Open prisons required minimal staffing and infrastructure, with inmates largely self-sustaining. The Court held that expansion of OCIs advances both constitutional and fiscal rationality.

Ratio Decidendi: Open Correctional Institutions are demonstrably more cost-effective and administratively sustainable than closed prisons; expansion of open correctional infrastructure is constitutionally justified and fiscally prudent.

---

Continuing Mandamus — Monitoring by High Courts — Institutional accountability. (Paras 129–133)

To ensure effective implementation, High Courts were directed to register suo motu writ petitions as continuing mandamus; State-level Monitoring Committees were mandated; and periodic reporting mechanisms were instituted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where structural reform of prison administration is required to enforce fundamental rights, this Court may invoke continuing mandamus and multi-tiered monitoring to secure effective compliance.

---

Operative Outcome

Comprehensive directions issued for:
• Establishment and optimal utilisation of OCIs;
• Inclusion of women prisoners;
• Rationalisation of eligibility norms;
• Strengthening of rehabilitative frameworks;
• Constitution of a High-Powered Committee for Common Minimum Standards;
• Expansion of open correctional infrastructure; and
• Judicial monitoring through High Courts and State Committees.

Matter listed for periodic compliance review.

Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9) The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal. Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings. Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Motor accident — Collision between vehicle in front and vehicle behind — Duty to maintain safe distance — Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 — Liability of insurer. (Paras 6, 10–11)

The accident involved a trailer moving in front and a truck following behind. The claimant, a Cleaner travelling in the truck, deposed that the truck was travelling at a distance of only 20 feet behind the trailer and that at a speed of 30–40 km per hour, a gap of 40–50 feet was necessary to ensure effective control. He admitted that had such distance been maintained, the accident could have been averted.

Relying on Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the Court reiterated that the driver of a vehicle following another must maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision in case of sudden braking. Failure to maintain such distance amounts to negligent driving.

The Tribunal had rightly fastened negligence on the truck driver. The High Court erred in reversing the finding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a vehicle travelling behind fails to maintain sufficient distance as mandated by Regulation 23, and collision occurs upon sudden braking of the vehicle ahead, negligence lies primarily on the following vehicle.

---

Evidence before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal — FIR/Criminal proceedings — Limited evidentiary value — Tribunal to be guided by evidence led before it. (Paras 7–9)

The respondent relied on documents relating to a criminal case allegedly involving confession of the trailer driver. The Court declined to place reliance on such documents, observing that the FIR details were unclear and that criminal proceedings concluded much before disposal of the claim petition were not proved before the Tribunal.

Following National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, it was reiterated that what matters before the Tribunal is the evidence adduced therein, and contents of FIR or criminal proceedings cannot override clear oral evidence recorded in the claim proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In motor accident claims, findings on negligence must be based on evidence adduced before the Tribunal; FIR contents or criminal case outcomes do not by themselves determine civil liability.

---

Contributory negligence — Plea — Absence of evidence — Rejection. (Para 12)

The attempt to attribute contributory negligence was rejected for want of any valid evidence establishing negligence on the part of the trailer driver sufficient to displace the primary negligence of the truck driver.

Ratio Decidendi: Contributory negligence must be established by cogent evidence; mere suggestion in cross-examination without substantive proof is insufficient.

---

Final Order

Order of the High Court set aside. Award of the Tribunal restored, fastening liability on the insurer of the truck, namely Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Appeal allowed. Pending applications disposed of.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Sections 98, 156 — Execution of award — Property of judgment-debtor liable to attachment and sale — Challenge to validity of mortgage after award attained finality — Impermissible. (Paras 21–23) An ex parte award dated 04.04.1994 under Section 91 attained finality; application to set aside the award was rejected. The award operated as a money decree executable under Section 98 as a decree of a Civil Court. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents being a judgment-debtor, his property was amenable to attachment and sale for recovery of decretal dues. Objection regarding absence of prior Government permission for mortgage was held irrelevant at the stage of execution of a final award. Ratio Decidendi: Once an award under the 1960 Act attains finality and becomes executable as a civil decree under Section 98, property of the judgment-debtor can be attached and sold for realization of dues; validity of the underlying mortgage cannot be re-opened in execution.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Sections 98, 156 — Execution of award — Property of judgment-debtor liable to attachment and sale — Challenge to validity of mortgage after award attained finality — Impermissible. (Paras 21–23)

An ex parte award dated 04.04.1994 under Section 91 attained finality; application to set aside the award was rejected. The award operated as a money decree executable under Section 98 as a decree of a Civil Court. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents being a judgment-debtor, his property was amenable to attachment and sale for recovery of decretal dues. Objection regarding absence of prior Government permission for mortgage was held irrelevant at the stage of execution of a final award.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an award under the 1960 Act attains finality and becomes executable as a civil decree under Section 98, property of the judgment-debtor can be attached and sold for realization of dues; validity of the underlying mortgage cannot be re-opened in execution.

---

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 154 — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope — Maintainability against confirmation of sale — Not curtailed by Rule 107 remedies — No pre-deposit required when revision not against recovery certificate. (Paras 24–42)

The legal representatives of the borrower filed revision under Section 154 challenging confirmation of auction sale. It was contended that remedy lay exclusively under Rule 107(13) or (14) of the 1961 Rules and that revision was not maintainable. The Court held that Section 154 confers wide revisional power to examine legality or propriety of any decision or order of a subordinate officer where no appeal lies. Remedies under Rule 107 are applications to set aside sale on specified grounds and do not eclipse statutory revisional power. Pre-deposit under Section 154(2-A) is attracted only when revision is against a recovery certificate; here revision was against confirmation of sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The revisional power under Section 154 of the 1960 Act is plenary and cannot be restricted by procedural remedies under Rule 107; revision is maintainable against confirmation of sale without pre-deposit where challenge is not to the recovery certificate.

---

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — Rule 107(11)(g) & (h) — Deposit of 15% at auction and balance within stipulated period — Mandatory requirement — Non-compliance renders sale a nullity — No discretion to extend time for balance payment. (Paras 45–48, 55)

Under Rule 107(11)(g), 15% of purchase price must be deposited at the time of sale; under Rule 107(11)(h), the remainder must be paid within 15 days (as applicable at the time). No provision authorises extension of time for payment of the balance purchase money. Consequences of default include forfeiture and resale after fresh proclamation under Rule 107(11)(i) & (j). Relying on Shilpa Shares & Securities v. National Co-operative Bank Ltd. and earlier precedents, the Court affirmed that non-deposit within prescribed time renders the sale void, not merely irregular.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Rule 107(11)(g) and (h) is mandatory; failure to deposit the balance purchase money within the stipulated period vitiates the sale, rendering confirmation a nullity.

---

Waiver — Applicability — Auction conditions under Rule 107 — Not confined to creditor’s benefit — Serve public purpose — No waiver by borrower. (Paras 50–55)

The auction purchaser relied on General Manager, Sri Siddheshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ikbal to contend that time stipulation could be waived. The Court distinguished the decision, noting that Rule 9(4) of the SARFAESI Enforcement Rules expressly permitted extension by written agreement, whereas Rule 107 contains no such provision. Moreover, the stipulation under Rule 107 serves broader public interest in maintaining sanctity of public auctions and preventing manipulation. There was no material indicating waiver by the borrower or his heirs.

Ratio Decidendi: Time stipulation under Rule 107(11)(h) is not merely for the creditor’s benefit and cannot be waived in absence of statutory provision; absence of timely deposit invalidates the sale notwithstanding creditor’s acceptance.

---

Relief — Consequence of void auction — Appropriate order — Fresh auction — Refund with interest — Protection of equities. (Paras 57–58)

While upholding that the sale and its confirmation were void, the Court modified the High Court’s directions. The property was directed to be put to fresh auction under Rule 107(11)(j). The auction purchaser, having deposited the entire amount as permitted by the Recovery Officer, was held entitled to refund with 6% interest per annum from date of deposit till repayment. Liberty was reserved to the Bank and judgment-debtors to arrive at settlement before the Recovery Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon declaring an auction void for non-compliance with mandatory rules, the proper course is to direct resale in accordance with law and order refund of the purchase money with reasonable interest to the auction purchaser.

---

Final Order

Auction sale dated 29.01.2005 and confirmation dated 18.03.2005 declared null and void. Property to be re-auctioned under Rule 107(11)(j). Bank to refund Rs.1,51,00,000 to M/s. Adishakti Developers with 6% interest from date of deposit till repayment. Liberty for settlement between decree-holder and judgment-debtors reserved. Appeals disposed of. No order as to costs.

Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Unilateral cancellation of registered lease — Impermissible — Absence of forfeiture clause — Determination under Section 111 TPA not established. (Paras 10.2, 21) The lease deed contained no clause permitting unilateral cancellation by the lessor. There was no proof of determination in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the unilateral deed of cancellation dated 03.12.2003 was illegal and non est. Ratio Decidendi: In absence of contractual stipulation or statutory ground under Section 111 TPA, a registered lease cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor; such cancellation is void.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 105 — Lease v. Licence — Tests for determination — Intention of parties — Literal construction preferred — Exclusive possession of demised portion decisive unless contrary intention established. (Paras 14–16, 18–21)

The substantial question concerned whether Ext. 1 dated 23.03.1998 created a lease for 99 years or merely a licence. The High Court treated the document as a licence, relying inter alia on subsequent conduct and retention of first floor by the owner. The Supreme Court, applying the settled principles in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor and M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, held that the decisive test is intention gathered from the substance of the document.

Ext. 1 expressly used the words “demise”, fixed a term of 99 years, stipulated yearly rent of Rs.1,000/-, permitted alterations by the lessee, and extended the benefit to heirs, successors and assigns. These clauses unequivocally created an interest in immovable property. Retention of occupation of the first floor by the lessor did not negate lease, as exclusive possession is assessed qua the demised portion.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the document, read as a whole, transfers an interest in immovable property for a definite term in consideration of rent and grants exclusive possession of the demised portion, it constitutes a lease under Section 105 TPA notwithstanding nomenclature or partial retention of occupation by the owner.

---

Construction of Documents — Literal rule — Limited scope for purposive or ex-post facto interpretation — Subsequent conduct not primary guide when language is clear. (Paras 17–21)

The Court reiterated the principles governing interpretation of deeds, including literal, golden and purposive rules, referring to Annaya Kocha Shetty v. Laxmi Narayan Satose. When the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plain meaning. Reliance on post-execution conduct to infer intention is unwarranted unless ambiguity exists.

The High Court erred in relying on cross-examination and subsequent conduct to construe Ext. 1 as a licence, despite clear covenants creating leasehold interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the terms of a written instrument are clear, intention must be gathered from the plain language of the document itself; recourse to subsequent conduct is impermissible in absence of ambiguity.

---

Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Unilateral cancellation of registered lease — Impermissible — Absence of forfeiture clause — Determination under Section 111 TPA not established. (Paras 10.2, 21)

The lease deed contained no clause permitting unilateral cancellation by the lessor. There was no proof of determination in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the unilateral deed of cancellation dated 03.12.2003 was illegal and non est.

Ratio Decidendi: In absence of contractual stipulation or statutory ground under Section 111 TPA, a registered lease cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor; such cancellation is void.

---

Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Purchasers during pendency of suit — Rights subject to outcome — Bona fide purchaser plea rejected on facts. (Paras 10.3, 22)

Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 purchased the property during pendency of the suit and with knowledge of the 99-year lease reflected in the encumbrance certificate. Their rights were subject to the leasehold interest and outcome of litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to subsisting rights and pending litigation; knowledge of prior encumbrance negates plea of bona fide purchase without notice.

---

Final Order

The impugned judgment of the High Court in RSA No. 123 of 2021 set aside. Judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court restored. Ext. 1 held to be a valid 99-year lease; unilateral cancellation illegal. Civil Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. (Paras 21–23)**

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50) The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search. Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50)

The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search.

Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

---

Criminal Evidence — Effect of illegal search — Admissibility of evidence seized — Relevancy test — Evidence not automatically excluded — Subject to admissibility and fairness. (Paras 50–53)

Despite holding the search illegal, the Court held that materials seized cannot be discarded altogether. Relying on Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra and the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, it was reiterated that illegality of search does not per se render seized material inadmissible; relevancy is the governing test, subject to judicial discretion to prevent unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence obtained through an illegal search is not per se inadmissible; unless expressly barred by statute, relevant material may be relied upon subject to admissibility and fairness.

---

PCPNDT Act — Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 23, 29 — Maintenance of Form F and records — Mandatory nature — Non-maintenance amounts to contravention — Burden on practitioner. (Paras 21, 39–40, 54, 56)

The Court reiterated that maintenance of complete record in Form F is mandatory and any deficiency constitutes contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless proved otherwise by the practitioner. Reliance was placed on Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, holding that non-maintenance of record is not a clerical lapse but the “springboard” for commission of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Complete and accurate maintenance of Form F and statutory records is mandatory under the PCPNDT regime; deficiency therein prima facie constitutes contravention attracting penal consequences under Section 23.

---

PCPNDT Act — Section 28 — Cognizance only on complaint by Appropriate Authority — Police discharge in FIR case — No bar to statutory complaint. (Paras 54)

The appellant had been discharged in a police case arising from FIR. The Court held that offences under the PCPNDT Act are cognizable only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28. Police discharge does not preclude initiation of independent complaint proceedings by the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Discharge in a police-registered FIR does not bar prosecution under the PCPNDT Act, which mandates cognizance only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority.

---

PCPNDT Rules — Rule 18A(2)(ii) — Membership of Advisory Committee — Alleged conflict of interest — Scope — Directory nature of code of conduct. (Paras 55)

The contention that a member of the raiding team was also part of the Advisory Committee was rejected. Rule 18A(2)(ii) applies only to persons forming part of the “investigating machinery”. The concerned individual was not part of such machinery. Moreover, the provisions under Rule 18A form part of a general code of conduct and are directory.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 18A(2)(ii) prohibits inclusion in the Advisory Committee only of persons forming part of the investigating machinery; incidental participation in raid does not ipso facto attract disqualification.

---

Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC — Quashing of complaint — Scope — Social welfare legislation — Trial not to be stifled at threshold where prima facie contravention alleged. (Paras 56–57)

The Court emphasized the object of the PCPNDT Act in combating female foeticide and held that where prima facie non-maintenance of statutory records is alleged, the prosecution should not be quashed at inception. Issues of admissibility, reliability and defence are matters for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the PCPNDT Act involving alleged statutory record violations, quashing at threshold is unwarranted where prima facie material exists; disputed factual issues must be adjudicated at trial.

---

Final Order

The criminal complaint No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram upheld. Appeal dismissed. Observations confined to adjudication of quashing; merits left open. No order as to costs. (Paras 57–58)**