Reports/JudgmentsTahir Hussain's Interim Bail : Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict, Referred To Larger BenchCase Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2025 pronounced a split verdict on the petition filed by Delhi riots case accused Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail to campaign for the...
Reports/Judgments
Tahir Hussain's Interim Bail : Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict, Referred To Larger Bench
Case Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2025 pronounced a split verdict on the petition filed by Delhi riots case accused Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail to campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections.
While Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed Hussain interim bail. In view of the divergence, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India either to refer the matter to a third judge or a larger bench.
The Court was dealing with Hussain's Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order which refused him interim bail and granted only a custody parole to file nomination to contest from the Mustafabad constituency to the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
Justice Mithal in his order observed that the right to contest in elections is not a fundamental right. Also, the right to contest the elections has been protected by the High Court's order granting custody parole to file nominations. Justice Mithal observed that allowing interim bail on this ground can open a "Pandora's box" as every undertrial would take this ground.
Release on interim bail for canvassing will amount to allowing the accused to go for door-to-door canvassing and hold meetings in the locality where the crime took place and witnesses reside, he said, opining that there is a high possibility of the accused meeting the witnesses.
The chargesheet reveals serious allegations against the accused and that the rooftop of his house/office was used as the "epicentre" for the offences, he noted.
Justice Amanullah, while acknowledging that the allegations are grave and serious, stated that they remain as only allegations at the present moment.
On the short point of the period undergone under custody (five years) and the fact that bail has been granted in other cases, he held that interim bail can be granted till February 4, 2024, subject to the conditions in Section 482 and 484 of BNSS 2023.
Subsequently, a three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted custody parole to Hussain to canvass votes in the Mustafabad constituency as a candidate of the AIMIM in elections to the Delhi legislative assembly.
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Guilt Of Ex-TN Minister's Wife In Whose Name Disproportionate Assets Were Registered
Case Title: P. Nallammal v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 545
The Supreme Court on May 7, 2025 delivered a split verdict on the culpability of P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A.M. Paramasivam, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and state minister during the 1991–1996 term, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife P. Nallammal was implicated for allegedly abetting this offence by holding benami properties in her name and their children's names.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld P. Nallammal's conviction, while Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted her.
Justice Dhulia observed that she had actively participated in acquiring properties in her name during her husband's ministerial tenure, fully aware that his lawful income could not support such purchases. Her inability to establish an independent source of income, he held, justified her conviction under Section 109 of the IPC for abetting her husband's offence. In support, he relied on P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, where it was held that non-public servants can abet corruption offences.
Justice Amanullah set aside the conviction, stating that the prosecution failed to establish mens rea on appellant's part, as mere registration of assets in Nallammal's name does not prove she knew the funds were illicit. Disagreeing with Justice Dhulia's opinion, Justice Amanullah stated the Court cannot ignore human realities, particularly typical conduct in marital relationships. He added that while criminal law allows certain presumptions, they cannot replace actual evidence. Therefore, presuming a relative's guilt solely because assets are in their name risks unfairly shifting the burden of proof and undermining the presumption of innocence beyond what the law permits, he said.
In view of the divergent opinion, the bench directed the Registry to place the relevant papers of the appeal before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Time Limit For Assessments Under S.144C
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 783
The Supreme Court on August 8, 2025 delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.
The judgment was delivered by the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The core issue before the Court was whether the twelve-month outer time limit stipulated under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act applies to proceedings under Section 144C, even though Section 144C functions as a self-contained code prescribing its own timelines for cases involving eligible assessees.
In a split verdict, Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred.
However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.
Due to the divergence of opinions, the bench directed the Registry to place these matters before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues which arise in these matters afresh. However, the matter has not been listed before any bench since then.
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Review Against Order Forming SIT With Hindu & Muslim Officers To Probe Akola Riots
Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mohammad Afzal Mohammad Sharif, Review Petition (Crl.) No. 447/2025
The Supreme Court on November 7, 2025 delivered a split verdict on Maharashtra government's plea seeking review of the order directing constitution of a Special Investigation Team to probe allegations regarding the State failure to probe an assault during the 2023 Akola Riots.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on the State's plea seeking review of its September 11 order which, while criticizing the Maharashtra police for failing to probe the assault, directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the allegations. The SIT was ordered to comprise senior officers from both the Hindu and Muslim communities.
While Justice Kumar found no ground for review, Justice Sharma allowed open Court hearing and issued notice on the petition.
Rejecting the plea for review and an open Court hearing, Justice Kumar observed that the case related to communal riots and prima facie hinted at a religious bias. Therefore, "it was necessary to direct constitution of an investigation team comprising senior police officers of both communities so as to maintain transparency and fairness in the investigation."
The judge further emphasized that "secularism needs to be actuated in practice and reality, rather than be left on paper to be enshrined as a constitutional principle".
Referring to the September 11 order, Justice Kumar opined that the facts clearly demonstrated that despite information being given about commission of a cognizable offence, neither the officers of the police station concerned nor the Superintendent of Police took necessary action by at least registering an FIR, "clearly manifesting total dereliction of duty on their part, be it deliberate or due to sheer carelessness".
Justice Sharma, on the other hand, noted that the state had sought review and recall of the judgment to the limited extent that “it directs or mandates the composition of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on the basis of religious identity”. He said it requires consideration and, therefore, issued notice to the respondents.
After the split verdict, the matter came before a bench of CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria. The three judge bench issued notice and stayed the previous direction to constitute an SIT comprising officers of both Hindu and Muslim communities to investigate the case.
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On ISKCON Mumbai's Review Plea Against ISKCON Bangalore
Case Title: International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Mumbai v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness, Bangalore & Ors. | Diary No. 37957 of 2025
The Supreme Court on October 28, 2025 delivered a split verdict in a review petition filed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) Society Mumbai against the Court's judgment delivered in May this year, which held that the ISKCON temple in Bengaluru belonged to ISKCON Society Bangalore.
In view of the divergence of opinion in the two-judge bench, the matter has now been placed before the Chief Justice of India for further action.
In May, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka (since retired) and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that the Bengaluru temple belonged to ISKCON Society, Mumbai. Consequently, ISKCON Society Bangalore got the rights over the Bengaluru temple.
Against this judgment, the Mumbai society filed a review petition. Since Justice Oka retired, the review petition was placed before a bench presided by Justice JK Maheshwari. Justice Masih (who was part of the original judgment) was the other judge of the review bench.
While Justice Maheshwari allowed the listing of the review petitions in open court for hearing and issued notice to the respondents, Justice Masih dismissed the review petitions. Justice Masih held that there was no error apparent on the record of the judgment to warrant a review.
The case is now before a three-judge bench of Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The three judge bench on December 3, 2025 allowed an open court hearing and issued notice on the Review Petitions.