51. Stamp Vendors Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act; Liable For Bribery Over Stamp Paper Sale: Supreme CourtCase Details: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court (May 2) held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, can...
51. Stamp Vendors Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act; Liable For Bribery Over Stamp Paper Sale: Supreme Court
Case Details: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court (May 2) held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, can be proceeded under the PC Act for the corrupt practices.
The Court held that it was the nature of the duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance when determining whether such a person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant as defined under the PC Act.
"Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government for the discharge of such duty, are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act," held the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
The Court said that mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under the PC Act.
52. Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes
Case Details: ASF Buildtech Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 521
The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties.
The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul the legislation, also failed to address this critical issue.
“The Department of Legal Affairs has now, once again proposed to replace the existing legislation on arbitration with the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024. Unfortunately, even the new Bill has taken no steps whatsoever, for ameliorating the position of law as regards the power of impleadment or joinder of an arbitral tribunal. What is expressly missing in the Act, 1996 is still missing in the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, despite a catena of decisions of this Court as-well as the various High Courts, highlighting the need for statutory recognition of such power in order to obviate all possibilities of confusion.”, the court observed.
“We urge, the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice to take a serious look at the arbitration regime that is prevailing in India and bring about necessary changes while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 is still being considered.”, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.
53. PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541
In an important judgment relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to a list of the documents and statements, which were collected by the Directorate of Enforcement during the investigation but were later given up by them while filing the prosecution complaint.
The Court held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production.
When an accused makes such an application, the Courts should be liberal in allowing them, and should deny only in exceptional circumstances, given the reverse burden imposed by the PMLA, the Court added.
At the stage of entering defence, the accused can apply for the issuance of process for production of documents or anything recorded under Section 233 CrPC (Section 256(b) BNSS). At this stage, the accused can also apply for the production of a document or thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but is not produced, the Court said.
"At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45 in connection with offences under PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation is in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objections to the production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the Court, after perusing the documents is satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it may deny the production of such documents," the Court added.
54. 'Highly Irresponsible': Supreme Court Slams BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's Comments Against Judiciary & CJI
Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547
The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the comments made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey attacking the judiciary and the Chief Justice of India, terming them "highly irresponsible" and attention-seeking. The Court said that the comments showed his ignorance about the functioning of the Constitutional Courts.
At the same time, the Court refrained from taking any action against him, saying that the public's confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey and to register FIRs against hate speeches made by political leaders in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
Also from the order –
55. 'Not Court's Duty To Tell Media To Delete': Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page About ANI's Case
Case Details: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 550
The Supreme Court (May 9) set aside the Delhi High Court order, which directed the deletion of a Wikipedia page on defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia on the ground that the page was prima facie contemptuous and amounted to interference in court proceedings
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the principle that Courts are open institutions to the public and the media reporting about judicial proceedings cannot be curbed lightly.
Courts as a public institution should always be open to the public, and the issues which are even sub judice can be debated by the public and the press, the bench held. "It is not the duty of the Court to tell the media to delete this and take that down... Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both should supplement each other," Justice Bhuyan read out from the judgment.
The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of public discourse and media scrutiny, stating that courts, as open and public institutions, must remain receptive to observations, debates, and constructive criticism.
The Court observed that even when a matter is sub judice, it is vital for important issues to be vigorously debated by the public and the press.
56. Supreme Court Discards Point-Based Assessment For Senior Designations, Asks HCs To Amend Rules
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 555
In a major revisit of the senior designation process, the Supreme Court directed that the point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee, which was evolved as per the judgments in Indira Jaising cases in 2017 and 2023, be discontinued.
As per the point-based process, a Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice and two senior most judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court, along with the Attorney General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, has to award points to each applicant based on the criteria such as 20 points based on the number of practice years, 50 points for reported judgments, 5 points for publications and 25 points based on the interview.
A three-judge bench, which was formed to revisit the Indira Jaising guidelines, directed that the point-based assessment for senior designation shall not be implemented by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti said that diversity and representation for lawyers practising in the trial courts must be ensured.
57. Citizens Who Approach Police Station To Report Crime Entitled To Be Treated With Dignity: Supreme Court
Case Details: Pavul Yesu Dhasan v. The Registrar State Human Rights Commission Of Tamil Nadu | SLP(C) No. 20028/2022 Diary No. 33406 / 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 562
The Supreme Court has observed that every person who approaches a police station to report the commission of an offence is entitled to be treated with dignity. "That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while upholding an order of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) imposing a cost of ₹2 lakh on the state government, to be recovered from the police inspector who had refused to register a First Information Report (FIR) and misbehaved with individuals who had approached the station to lodge a complaint regarding alleged cheating and embezzlement amounting to ₹13 lakh.
"Every citizen of India who goes to the police station to report commission of an offence deserves to be treated with dignity. That is his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.
58. Standard Form Employment Contracts: Supreme Court Lays Down Principles Of Interpretation
Case Details: Vijaya Bank & Anr. v. Prashant B Narnaware
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 565
The Supreme Court outlined the legal principles applicable to interpreting standard form contracts often viewed as weaker contracts from the employee's perspective typically drafted unilaterally by employers (such as corporations or institutions) and offered to employees on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi laid down legal principles relating to the interpretation of standard form employment contracts were summarized as follows:
"(i) Standard form employment contracts prima facie evidence unequal bargaining power.
(ii) Whenever the weaker party to such a contract pleads undue influence/coercion or alleges that the contract or any term thereof is opposed to public policy, the Court shall examine such plea keeping in mind the unequal status of the parties and the context in which the contractual obligations were created.
(iii) The onus to prove that a restrictive covenant in an employment contract is not in restraint of lawful employment or is not opposed to public policy, is on the covenantee i.e. the employer and not on the employee."
The Court said that although the standard form of contract creates an unequal bargaining power to the employee, it cannot be invalidated solely on that ground unless it is shown that the contract's term is oppressive, unconscionable, or against public policy.
The Court upheld the validity of a bond clause in an employment contract, allowing a Public Sector Bank to recover ₹2 lakhs from an employee who resigned before completing the mandatory three-year service period.
The Court held that exclusivity clauses in employment contracts (requiring minimum service period) are legally permissible and do not fall within the scope of Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, which prohibits agreements in restraint of trade. Since these clauses operate during the term of employment rather than post-termination, they are not considered restrictive under the law, the court said.
The Court emphasized that in today's competitive environment, public sector undertakings must continuously revise their policies to enhance operational efficiency and streamline administrative costs. One critical aspect of this strategy is retaining skilled and experienced staff who contribute to the development of managerial capacity, an interest that the Court deemed essential to such organizations.
59. Supreme Court Directs Regularisation Of Court Managers, Directs High Courts To Frame Rules On Their Recruitment
Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 582
The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the fact that Court Managers in many states are working on a contractual basis and that some states have even discontinued their services, citing a shortage of funds.
Deploring this situation, the Court directed that all States should regularise the existing Court Managers, subject to their passing the suitability test. The regularisation shall be with effect from the beginning of their services. However, they will not be entitled to salary arrears.
The Court further directed the High Courts to frame or amend rules regarding the recruitment of court managers and submit the same to the State Government. The State Government should approve them within three months. The Court Managers should be given the scale of Class II officers.
60. Don't Grant Ex-Post Facto Environmental Clearances In Future: Supreme Court To Centre; Quashes Previous Notifications
Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India and connected matters.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 588
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) restrained the Central Government from granting "ex-post facto" Environmental Clearances (EC) in future and set aside the previous Office Memoranda and notifications which allowed for the grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance for mining projects.
This means that the projects which commenced without obtaining the mandatory prior Environmental Clearance cannot be later regularised by granting them EC in future.
The Court however did not interfere with the ECs already granted.
61. All Retired HC Judges Entitled To Equal & Full Pension Based On 'One Rank One Pension' Principle: Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re Refixation Of Pension Considering Service Period In District Judiciary And High Court SMW (C) No. 4/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 595
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 19) held that all retired judges are entitled to full and equal pension, regardless of their date of retirement and source of entry, following the principle of "one rank one pension."
The Court held that there cannot be discrimination in the pension of High Court judges based on when they entered service and whether they are appointed from judicial service or from the bar.
"We hold that all the retired judges of the High Court, irrespective of the date on which they were appointed, will be entitled to receive full pension," the Court held.
62. Supreme Court Mandates Minimum Practice As Advocate To Enter Judicial Service
Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.
The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrolment. The said condition will, however, not apply to recruitment process already initiated by the High Courts before the judgment. In other words, this condition will apply only to future recruitments.
The Supreme Court directed that the quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) be increased from 10% to 25%. The Court directed all High Courts and State Governments to amend their service rules to this effect.
Other stories about the judgment can be read here.
63. NEET-PG: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Prevent Seat-Blocking; Mandates Pre-Counselling Fee Disclosure By Colleges
Case Details: State of UP v. Miss Bhavna Tiwari and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 607
The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding the conduct of counselling for NEET-PG (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test- Post Graduate) to tackle the malpractices of seat-blocking for admissions to post-graduate medical courses.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was considering the issue of large-scale blocking of seats during the Medical Admissions/ counselling procedure for NEET PG exams.
64. Duty Of Central Government To Keep Highways Free Of Encroachment: Supreme Court Issues Directions
Case Details: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC ) 608
The Supreme Court has issued various directions to the Union Government and Highway Administration for the removal of encroachments on National Highways, while expressing dissatisfaction over ineffective implementation of statutory provisions under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.
The directions include – The Union of India and Highway Administration must widely publicize the Rajmargyatra app (to register encroachment complaints), issue SOP for highway inspection teams, and form surveillance teams with State Police for highway patrolling.
The authorities also have to consider and implement the suggestions by Amicus Curiae Swati Ghildiyal which included issuing circulars on inspection teams, creating surveillance teams, installing CCTV cameras, and improving the Rajmargyatra app and grievance portal.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued the directions in a writ petition raising issues relating to the safety of National Highways and the implementation of the 2002 Act and Highway Administration Rules, 2004.
“In fact, under the 2002 Act, there is a provision in the form of Section 23, which stipulates that highway land shall be deemed to be the property of the Central Government. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Central Government to maintain the National Highways. The maintenance of highways includes the obligation to keep them in good condition. It also includes keeping them free of encroachments and, most importantly, providing adequate safety measures to reduce the possibility of accidents”, the Court observed.
65. Maternity Leave Part Of Reproductive Rights: Supreme Court Sets Aside Denial Of Maternity Leave For Third Child
Case Details: K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 614
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had denied maternity leave to a government teacher for the birth of her third child, citing State policy restricting benefits to two children.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights and that maternity leave is integral to those benefits.
“We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside. The division bench order has been set aside,” the Supreme Court observed.
"Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity."
The Court set aside the impugned judgment which provided that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a statutory right or a right flowing from service conditions.
66. Supreme Court Asks Assam Human Rights Commission To Enquire Into Alleged Fake Encounters In State
Case Details: Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder v. The State Of Assam And Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 638
The Supreme Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (Assam HRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious enquiry into allegations of fake police encounters in the State of Assam.
The directions were passed in a petition alleging rampant "fake" encounters in the State as well as non-compliance by state authorities with the directions issued in PUCL v. State of Maharashtrapertaining to investigation of police encounters. The petitioner, an advocate, had brought as many as 171 instances to the notice of the Court.
A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh observed that the role of human rights commissions as protectors of civil liberties was paramount and expressed confidence that the Assam HRC would perform its duties effectively.
67. Right To Have Unobstructed & Disabled-Friendly Footpaths Part Of Article 21: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Govts
Case Details: S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 643
In a significant order affirming the constitutional rights of pedestrians, the Supreme Court held that the right to use footpaths and footways is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court was hearing an application raising the issue of pedestrian safety, with a specific emphasis on the lack of proper footpaths and their encroachments.
"Right to have unobstructed and disabled friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court said, directing all states and Union Territories to frame guidelines to ensure that proper footpaths are available to pedestrians.
Recognising the seriousness of the issue, the Court observed that in the absence of proper footpaths, pedestrians are forced to walk on roads, exposing them to grave risks and causing numerous accidents. The Bench held that the safety of pedestrians is of utmost importance, and that footpaths must be constructed and maintained in a manner that ensures accessibility for persons with disabilities.
68. Supreme Court Issues Directions To Make Pay & Allowances Of Consumer Commission Members Uniform Across All States/UTs
Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court has framed a uniform pattern of pay and allowances to be given to Presidents and Members of District and State Consumer Commissions across all States and Union Territories.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a suo motu case concerning disparities in salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members.
69. Secretly Recorded Telephonic Conversation Of Spouse Admissible Evidence In Matrimonial Cases : Supreme Court
Case Details: Vibhor Garg v. Neha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 694
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment that held that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy and cannot be admitted in evidence before a Family Court.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings.
Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act bars disclosure of marital communications without consent, except in legal proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other.
The Court stated that the spousal privilege under the first part of the section cannot be absolute and must be read in light of the exception provided in the same provision. “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair trial, which is also an aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court said.
70. 'Faulty Investigation' : Supreme Court Acquits Man On Death Row, Issues Nationwide Guidelines On DNA Evidence Handling
Case Details: Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State Of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 703
The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for the murders of a couple and the rape of the woman victim, citing grave procedural lapses in the handling of DNA evidence.
In doing so, the Court issued binding nationwide guidelines to ensure proper collection, preservation, and processing of DNA and other biological materials in criminal investigations.
"A common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated by way of this judgment, is that of faulty investigation," the Court observed.
The Court expressed the need to enact a law for awarding compensation in cases of wrongful incarceration. However, the Court stated that it is in the Parliament's domain to decide on this aspect.
71. No Arrest In 498A FIRs For 2 Months; Refer Cases To Family Welfare Committees : Supreme Court Endorses Allahabad HC Guidelines
Case Details: Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 735
The Supreme Court endorsed the safeguards laid down by the Allahabad High Court regarding the establishment of the Family Welfare Committee (“FWC”) to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC(cruelty offence) in matrimonial disputes.
The Court directed that the guidelines framed by the High Court will remain in effect and should be implemented by the authorities.
Also from the judgment - Supreme Court Orders IPS Wife & Her Parents To Issue Public Apology To Husband & In-Laws For False Criminal Cases
72. In NEET Aspirant's Death Case, Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Protect Mental Health Of Students In Colleges & Coaching Centres
Case Details: Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 740
Addressing the issue of students' suicides in India, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to protect the mental health of students in schools, colleges, and coaching centres.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued fifteen binding directions, while deciding a case a 17-year-old NEET aspirant who died under suspicious circumstances after falling from her hostel terrace in Visakhapatnam.
While issuing the set of guidelines for ensuring psychological well-being of students, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to mental health is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and dignity (Article 21).
The bench held that mental well-being is inseparable from the right to life, while criticizing the coaching centres and educational institutions for fostering a toxic rank and result culture.
73. Supreme Court Directs Telangana Speaker To Decide On Disqualification Of BRS MLAs Who Defected To INC Within 3 Months
Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 755
In the matter relating to the defection of ten BRS MLAs in Telangana to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 31) directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide the petitions seeking their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.
The Court observed that it cannot allow a situation of "operation successful, but patient died" by allowing the disqualification petitions to remain pending during the term of the assembly, allowing the defectors to reap the benefits of the delay.
Noting that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the disqualification petitions for nearly seven months, the Supreme Court observed :
"The question therefore we ask ourselves is whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner. Expeditiousness was one of the reasons why the Parliament has entrusted the important task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman. Non-issuance of notice for a period of seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court or after this Court has heard the matter for the first time can be, by any stretch of imagination, envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner."
The Court recommended to the Parliament to reconsider the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution which entrust the Speaker of the House with the task of deciding a legislator's disqualification on the ground of defection.
Case : M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 666
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a "victim" within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 2(y) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita], who can file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC [Section 413 of the BNSS].
"In the case of an offence alleged against an accused under Section 138 of the Act, we are of the view that the complainant is indeed the victim owing to the alleged dishonour of a cheque. In the circumstances, the complainant can proceed as per the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC and he may exercise such an option and he need not then elect to proceed under Section 378 of the CrPC," held a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Also from the judgment- Victims Of Offences Can File Appeal Against Acquittal u/s 372 CrPC Even If They Aren't Complainants: Supreme Court
Cause Title: BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (And Connected Matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 780
In a significant ruling (August 6), the Supreme Court held that regulatory assets created by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“ERCs”) to shield consumers from immediate tariff hikes should not remain unresolved for extended periods. The Court directed that future regulatory assets must be liquidated within three years, while existing ones must be cleared within four years.
The Court also directed all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) to submit detailed time-bound roadmaps outlining the schedule for regulatory asset liquidation, including the associated carrying costs.
In brief, 'Regulatory Assets', created by the ERCs, are deferred revenue gaps costs already incurred by DISCOMs (Distribution Companies) but not immediately recovered through consumer tariffs. They are meant to shield consumers from sudden tariff spikes by postponing recovery to future years.
Part 1 (1-25) can be read here. Part 2 (26-50) can be read here.