Nominal IndexCitationsRimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 143Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 144Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No.12213/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 145State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 146 Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil...
Nominal Index
Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 143
Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 144
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No.12213/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 145
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 146
Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 147
M/S. C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6657 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 148
P.V. Krishnabhat v. State of Karnataka, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 1754/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 150
Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection | W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 151
Kamla Bai v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 152
Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153
Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 154
Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155
Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Thammaraya and Another v. State of Karnataka., Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158
Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat., Diary No. - 45970/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 159
Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 41/2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 160
Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 In C.A. No. 7064/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 161
Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 162
Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705/2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163
Rampal Gautam v. State, Diary No. – 33274/2016 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164
Kumari Sahu v. Bhubanananda Sahu, Diary No. – 41995/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 165
M/S S.R.S. Travels By Its Proprietor K.T. Rajashekar v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166
Irfan v. State of Madhya Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1667-1668 of 2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 167
Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Union of India Rep By Government of Puducherry & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors., SLP(C) No. 2868/2018 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 170
Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 171
D.M. Jagadish v. Bangalore Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172
Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20519 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 173
Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 21115/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 174
Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 175
Hitesh Verma v. M/S Health Care At Home India Pvt. Ltd., Diary No. – 29293/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 176
Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented By Inspector of Police 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 177
AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited v. Jatin Pratap Desai & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 179
Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 180
Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 181
Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 182
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 183
Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal, Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 184
Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 185
Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 186
Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 187
Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. Registrar General Jharkhand High Court 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 188
Union of India and Ors. v. Future Gaming Solutions P. Ltd. and Anr. Etc., C.A. No. 4289-4290/2013 & Connected Matters 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 189
Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 191
B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 192
M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1188/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 193
Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) & Connected Matter 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Jay Kishan and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 196
Dr. Amaragouda L v. Union of India and Ors., | C.A. No. 301-303/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 197
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prism Cement Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13928 of 2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 198
Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors | Special Leave Petition (C) No.17157 OF 2022 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 199
Smt. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 200
Union of India Through Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201
K Krishnamurthy v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 202
Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 203
CMJ Foundation v. State of Meghalaya., Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 204
M/S. Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr. 2025 Livelw (SC) 206
Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 207
P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas., SLP(Civil) No. 4036-4038 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 208
Vipin Kumar v. State of UP 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 209
Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr.| Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 2783/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 210
Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 212
Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-260 of 2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 213
Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions v. M/S International Health Care Education and Research Institute 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 214
Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 215
Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 216
Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation., Arising Out of SLP(C) No.10042/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 217
Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr v. State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Ebtesham Khatoon v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 6658/2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 219
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 220
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 221
Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited | SLP (Crl) No. 10212/2024 and Connected Cases 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 222
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 818/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 223
Tilku Alias Tilak Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 224
Arunaditya Dubey v. Medical Council of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No.1205 of 2019 (And Connected Cases) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 225
Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 226
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 227
Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors., SLP(Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 228
Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 229
Omega Elevators v. State of M.P. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 230
M/S Tarapore and Co v. United India Insurance Company Limited., Civil Appeal No. 2387 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 231
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 232
Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233
Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2759/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 234
State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob, Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 25736- 25737/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 235
Anmol v. Union of India & Ors | Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 236
Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah., Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 237
Rejia Khatun @ Rezia Khatun v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12481/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 238
State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 239
Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors., Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 241
Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 242
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 244
Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No. 851/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 245
Nandkumar Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 246
Yashpal Chail v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 247
Nirmiti Developers v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-3239 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 248
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 250
Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 251
Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 252
Mahaveer Sharma v. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr., Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2136 of 2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 253
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of Nct & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 254
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
Lifecare Innovations Pvt Ltd v. Union of India., Writ Petition (C) No. 1301 of 2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 256
M. S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. v. J. Manjula Etc 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 257
Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj | Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 258
Kaniskh Sinha v. State of West Bengal 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259
M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar & Ors. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 4526-4527 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 260
In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service, SMW(C) No. 2/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261
Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 262
Pradeep N Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Another / SLP (CRL) 354/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 263
Chief Manager Central Bank of India v. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Limited 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 264
Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265
Prabhavathi and Ors. v. Managing Director Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266
Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 267
CS Umesh v. TV Gangaraju and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 268
Rahul Verma and Ors. v. Rampat Lal Verma and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269
Racing Promotions Private Limited v. Dr. Harish & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 270
Valsamma Chacko & Anr v. M.A. Titto & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27621 of 2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 271
Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 272
Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 273
Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024
Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 86/2025
CR Jaya Sukin v. Secretary To The President and Others | W.P.(C) No. 98/2025
Rupshi Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 68/2025
State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 013029 / 1985
Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013
Adarsh R. Iyer v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 1183/2025
Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India| W.P.(C) No. 000083 / 2025
Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 In C.A. No. 7064/2019
Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1076/2019 and Connected Matters
Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 103/2025
Madhav Kant Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 576/2014
State of Karnataka v. Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi| SLP(Crl) No. 005403 - / 2024
Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000129 / 2012
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh
Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 403/2024
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors.
Shashank Walia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 70/2025
Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors | WP(C) 93/2015
Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024,
Mohammed Ghayoor v. Rajender Pensiya and Ors., Diary No. 2651 of 2025
Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 103/2025
Arnab Kumar Mullick v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000215 - / 2024
Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
State Bank of India and Others v. Reserve Bank of India and Others | SLP(C) No. 35933-35934/2016
National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 5216/2023
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2021
Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 13381/1984
Indrani Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 17027/2024
Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024
E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003
All India Judges Association v. Uoi and Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
Mohammad Azam Khan and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 17240/2024
Shabbar Khan v. National Investigative Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 17214/2024
Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013
Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India, SLP(C) No.7446/2024
J Deepa v. Superintendent of Police | SLP(Crl) No. 2208/2025
Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 20330/2023
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jerald Alameda and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6321/2023
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail | SMW (CRL.) NO. 4/2021
Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 35312-2024
S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India | WP (Crl) 9/2016
Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 1895/2025
Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024
Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
Christian James Michel v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 17016/2024
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Md. Kamaluddin Ansari & Ors.
T.M.D. Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Pratyush Rawat & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 30405/2024
State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala . and Anr., Orgnl.Suit No. 3/2006
Vikas Mamanchand Goyal v. Shekhar Singh and Anr., Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 60/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 295/2022
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India| SMW(C) No. 10/2024
Aadhar Khera v. State of Government of Nct of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 2591/2025
Dr. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1496/2018
Telangana State Are-Katika (Khatik) Sangh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 141/2025
Rajyashree Chhokar v. Manish Chhokar | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 533-534/2022 In Crl.A. No. 1607-1608/2019
In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail
We The Women of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 12213/2019
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashok Malik & Ors.
Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr | W.P.(C) No. 28/2025
Rajat v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000136 / 2025
A. Shankar @Savukku Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 000340 / 2024
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
MC Mehta v. Union of India, WP (C) 13029/1985
Rajesh Dhanda v. Union of India Ministry of External Affairs and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 153/2025
Union of India v. Seba P.A. | SLP(C) No. 004684 - / 2025
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Chirag Sen and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. | Diary No. 9824-2025
Arvind Kumar Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. SLP(C) No. 2972/2019
HD Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6740/2020
Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 019466/2021
Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21466/2024
Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 175/2025
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Isha Foundation, Diary No. 57906/2024
Satish Chandra Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 2600/2025
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 930-933/2024
Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 17921/2024
Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors. | Diary No. 6711 of 2024
Manish Jagan Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 99/2025
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. State of Haryana and Ors., Diary No. 7483-2025
Sachin Jaiswal v. M/S Hotel Alka Raje & Ors.
Reports/Judgments
Order Passed On Oral Consent Given By Counsel Can't Be Reviewed On Ground That There Was No Written Consent: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 143
The Supreme Court emphasized that all constitutional courts in India accept oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties, and an order cannot be reviewed solely on the ground that consent was not provided in writing.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a review petition in a service matter based solely on the lack of written consent for an earlier order passed by the High Court.
“All constitutional courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on the footing that there is no consent given in writing. As oral consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26 April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent”, the Court held
Supreme Court Relaxes Conditions To Appoint Ad Hoc Judges In High Courts, Says Vacancies Needn't Be More Than 20%
Case Details: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 144
Relaxing the conditions to appoint ad hoc judges in High Courts, the Supreme Court kept in abeyance the condition in its April 2021 judgment that ad hoc judges as per Article 224 of the Constitution can be appointed only if the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.
As per Article 224A, retired High Court judges can be appointed as High Court Judges.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant passed the direction so as to ease the appointment of ad-hoc judges considering the high rise in the pendency of cases, especially criminal appeals.
Supreme Court Directs Delhi's Defence Colony Welfare Association To Vacate Illegal Possession Of Lodhi-Era Tomb
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 145
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, for its illegal encroachment of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance. The Court has ordered the DCWA to handover the peaceful possession of Gumti within 2 weeks.
It added that in the process of evacuation, no further damage should be done to the Gumti and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is responsible for removing any other encroachment if done. A Court Commissioner has accordingly been appointed by the Court to supervise the handing over of the monument from DCWA to the Land &Development Office, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (L&DO), the original owner of the building. In 1962, the land where the Gumti is situated was handed over to MCD for its maintenance.
AoR Designated As Senior Advocate Cannot Appear Without Informing Clients Of Sr Designation & Reporting Compliance To Registry: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 146
The Supreme Court emphasized that Advocates on Record (AoRs) who are designated as Senior Advocates must inform their clients about their designation and submit a report to the Registry confirming that alternate arrangements have been made for their clients' representation.
The Court stated that failure to comply with this obligation would bar such Senior Advocates from appearing before the Court, as per Rule 18, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed to the Registry to notify AoRs who have not complied with Rule 18, of this requirement. The Court noted that such advocates cannot appear as Senior Advocates until they fulfil their obligations under the Rule.
Indefinite Suspension Not Permitted; Consider Reinstatement Of Tihar Jail Officials Suspended In Unitech Case: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Dealing with an application filed in the Unitech case, the Supreme Court directed the competent authority to decide within 4 weeks the issue of reinstatement of 32 Tihar jail officials, who were suspended pursuant to its 2021 order for extending undue help and assistance to ex-Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra & Ajay Chandra while they were in jail.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, saying that indefinite suspension cannot be permitted as it causes significant loss to the public exchequer. It was further observed that the concerned officials have remained under suspension for over 3.5 yrs.
The issue of reinstatement of the concerned officials shall be considered by the competent authority on a case-to-case basis, the Court said.
Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act
Case Details: M/S. C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6657 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 148
The Supreme Court reiterated that in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court has a narrower scope to review the arbitral award if the award has already been upheld under Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral awards). Reliance was placed on the decision in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, wherein the Court had said:
“The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality i.e. that “illegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be of a trivial nature”; and that the Tribunal “must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground” The other ground would be denial of natural justice. In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34.”
Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court
Case Details: P.V. Krishnabhat v. State of Karnataka, Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 1754/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149
The Supreme Court while quashing a case involving allegations of cruelty and dowry said that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment. It added that courts must be cautious while dealing with such cases to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives., the Court said.
“Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.”
S. 74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It's Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty: Supreme Court
Case Details: Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 150
The Supreme Court clarified that forfeiting a reasonable earnest money deposit in a contract does not constitute a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872.
“It can be seen that this Court has held that if the forfeiture of earnest money under a contract is reasonable, then it does not fall within Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, inasmuch as, such a forfeiture does not amount to imposing a penalty.”, the Court held.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the case in which the Respondents, as flat purchasers, challenged the Appellant builder's forfeiture of 20% of the basic sale price as earnest money following their cancellation of the flat booking.
Supreme Court Allows All Disabled Candidates To Take Scribe In Exams Without Meeting Benchmark Disabilities
Case Details: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection | W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 151
The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate suffering from Focal Hand Dystonia(a type of a writ's camp), seeking to avail the benefit of the scribe by relying on landmark Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) in which it held that benchmark disability is not the precondition to obtaining a scribe.
The Court has held that the facility of scribe and other necessary facilities should be extended to all disabilities thereby upholding the right of inclusive education of persons with disability to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the judgment by reiterating the Vikas Kumar judgment in which a UPSC candidate, who suffered from Writer's camp, was allowed to avail scribe as against the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018, in which it was stated that a scribe could be provided only to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with an impairment of at least 40%.
'Each Judge Has 15K-20K Matters': Supreme Court Expresses Concern At Allahabad HC Case Pendency; Stresses On Need To Fill Vacancies
Case Details: Kamla Bai v. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 152
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by 95-year-old petitioner seeking directions for the Allahabad High Court to take up her second Appeal pending since 2013 and decide the matter at the earliest.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed that the order passed in the present writ petition shall be treated as a representation addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in regards to matters pending for many decades in the High Court and pass an appropriate order in this regard on its administrative side.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court has been struggling to cope with the pending matters and the only way out is to take necessary steps at the earliest to fill up the vacancies by recommending suitable persons on the basis of pure merit and ability.
'Uma Devi' Judgment Can't Justify Exploitative Engagements: Supreme Court Allows Regularisation Of Long-Serving Daily Wagers
Case Details: Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153
The Supreme Court criticized the practice of public institutions hiring workers on daily wages (temporary contracts) to avoid providing them with permanent benefits. The Court reaffirmed that long-serving temporary workers appointed to sanctioned positions cannot be denied regularization simply because their initial appointments were temporary.
While acknowledging the precedent set in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which established that daily wage workers cannot claim permanent employment without meeting constitutional requirements and the existence of sanctioned vacancies, the Court clarified that this ruling cannot be used to deny long-serving workers their rights when the work they perform is inherently permanent.
“Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.”, the court observed.
Meticulous Examination Needed In Cases Where FIR Was Against Unknown Persons & Accused Are Not Known To Witnesses: Supreme Court
Case Details: Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 154
Emphasizing the need for meticulous examination in cases involving unidentified accused, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of two individuals in a case for bus robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.
“In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”, the court observed.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the case where the Appellants being unknown to the witnesses alleged to have committed robbery in the moving bus.
'Extrajudicial confession Lacks Credibility, Circumstances Not Proved': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused
Case Details: Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155
While acquitting a murder accused, the Supreme Court observed that extrajudicial confession is one of the other instances of circumstantial evidence, including the accused's guilt after the incident, recovery of evidence, and others. The Court reiterated that in cases where reliance is placed solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can only occur when all circumstances point towards the accused's guilt.
“The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence”, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held.
Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme Court
Case Details: Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved.
The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband.
Holding so, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted relief to the woman allowing her appeal against the Telangana High Court's order to deny her maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband just because her marriage with the first husband was not legally dissolved.
“It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband,” the Court observed while holding that S.125 CrPC required a broad interpretation considering its social welfare objective.
Omission To Conduct TIP Of Recovered Articles Material When Case Is Based Solely On Recoveries: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict
Case Details: Thammaraya and Another v. State of Karnataka., Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157
The Supreme Court in a matter where the prosecution had solely relied on the recovery of articles for convicting accused persons for murder, observed that failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles was “sheer negligence and dereliction of duty”.
While acquitting appellants/ accused persons charged with murder, the Court observed that, in cases where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, every relevant fact must be linked with duly proved circumstances.
“Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend. Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt.,” marked the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.
Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is A Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158
The Supreme Court noted that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural, weakening the complainant's account. This omission, though otherwise irrelevant, becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the Court stated.
Holding so, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an individual in a murder case after noting that the lead complainant (deceased's father) omitted to mention two perpetrators in FIR, who according to him were present at the crime incident accompanying the main accused in the commission of the crime.
The Court observed that the complainant's omission to name two perpetrators in FIR, otherwise not relevant, becomes relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.
“If he claims to be an eye-witness to the incident and is said to have witnessed three persons known to him assaulting his son i.e. the deceased then what was the good reason not to name the other two accused (juvenile Accused) in the FIR. This omission assumes significance and is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed.
Application Seeking Exemption From Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner Sentenced To Term Of Imprisonment: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat., Diary No. - 45970/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 159
The Supreme Court observed that as per its 2013 rules, an application, filed in special leave petitions, seeking exemption from surrendering can neither be entertained nor listed before the Judge-in-Chambers, except when the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Referring to Order XXII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court observed :
“On perusal of the aforesaid Rule,it is clear that an Interlocutory Application for exemption from surrendering is admissible only where the petitioner in the special leave petition has been 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and not in any other situation.”
“We have observed that the Registry of this Court has been entertaining applications for exemption from surrendering in various other categories of cases, such as the rejection of anticipatory bail, rejection of a prayer for an extension of interim bail, etc,” the Court added.
Supreme Court Quashes Conviction For Rape & Kidnapping After Noting Convict Married Victim & Have 4 Children
Case Details: Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 41/2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 160
The Supreme Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the sentence of the present accused-appellant for rape and kidnapping charges after noting that he married the complainant and they have four children.
The bench of Justices B.V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, after perusing the submissions, observed that Article 142 of the Constitution confers special power to pass necessary orders for doing complete justice. The Court acknowledged that this power should be used sparingly and after keeping peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in regard. Taking note of the fact that the appellant-accused subsequently married the victim and had four children out of their wedlock, the Court invoked its inherent power in the present case.
Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Plea To Prospectively Apply 2019 Judgment Allowing Solatium & Interest For National Highway Land Acquisitions
Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 In C.A. No. 7064/2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 161
The Supreme Court dismissed plea filed by NHAI seeking a clarification that the Court's 2019 ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh on grant of solatium and interest to landowners shall apply prospectively.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rendered the decision, stating,
“Granting such clarification would nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide...The ultimate outcome of Tarsem Singh is related to granting solatium and interest to aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015...It does not in any way direct the reopening of cases that have already attained finality. On the contrary, modifying or clarifying Tarsem Singh would land itself to violating the doctrine of immutability undermining the finality of the decision...what the applicant seeks to achieve indirectly is to evade responsibility and further delay resolution of a settled issue, where the directions given are unequivocal...What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
Acquittal In Criminal Case Doesn't Bar Departmental Proceedings Against Public Servant: Supreme Court
Case Details: Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 162
The Supreme Court noted that even if a public servant is acquitted in a corruption case due to a lack of evidence meeting the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, they may still face a departmental inquiry.
In criminal proceedings, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while departmental inquiries require only a preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed that this difference means an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent or halt a disciplinary inquiry, thus even if the public servant was dismissed based on a disciplinary inquiry, his/her reinstatement is not automatic after a criminal acquittal.
A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta heard a case involving the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and a former employee. The AAI appealed against a decision of the Calcutta High Court that overturned the employee's dismissal from services based on a departmental disciplinary inquiry in a corruption case.
If A Intends To Kill B But Mistakenly Kills C, Intention To Kill C Is Attributed To A: Supreme Court Explains 'Transmigration Of Motive'
Case Details: Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705/2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163
The Supreme Court observed that Section 301 of the IPC (Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended) reflects the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Explaining this provision, the Court said that culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. Provided that the killing takes place while doing an act which the offender intended.
Taking the help of an illustration, the bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan elaborated:
“From the perusal of the provision of Section 301 of the IPC, it becomes manifest that Section 301 embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Under the Section, if A intends to kill B, but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed to him.”
Further Investigation Can Be Directed Even After Filing Of Chargesheet & Commencement Of Trial: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rampal Gautam v. State, Diary No. – 33274/2016
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164
The Supreme Court reiterated that further investigation can be directed even after the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. Taking support of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others., (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Court highlighted that the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do substantial justice.
However, before directing such an investigation, the Court, after going through the available material, should apply its mind to whether an investigation of the concerned allegations is required.
Many Litigants Socio-Economically Backward, Shouldn't Suffer Due To Advocate's Fault: Supreme Court On Approach In Delay Condonation
Case Details: Kumari Sahu v. Bhubanananda Sahu, Diary No. – 41995/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 165
The Supreme Court observed that though courts have to be cautious while condoning delays of long duration, in cases where the delay can be attributed to the advocate, balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative. It highlighted that the socio-economic background of litigants who approach the courts for justice should be kept in mind.
“We are aware of the caution that needs to be exercised in matters relating to condonation of delay of longer durations. However, it must be noted that balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative when it comes to such matters, especially given the socio-economic background of a large number of India's population who approach these doors of justice as litigants.”
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while condoning the delay of 225 days in filing a second appeal before the High Court. Essentially, the present appellant had filed a Civil Suit, among others, seeking a declaration, as herself being the legally married wife of one (late) Raj Kishore Sahoo. The suit having been dismissed, she filed a first appeal. Since the same was also dismissed, she approached the High Court in a second appeal.
Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Law Which Delegates Power Of Issuing Transport Permits To STA Secretary
Case Details: M/S S.R.S. Travels By Its Proprietor K.T. Rajashekar v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166
The Supreme Court, in a key ruling regarding private motor vehicle operators in Karnataka, upheld the constitutionality of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (“2003 Act”) granting the power to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority(STA) to issue transport permits within the state.
The Court also upheld that the power of the STA to its Secretary to issue transport permits.
The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed that the routine grant of permits should not be constricted in the hands of the State Transport Authority (“STA”), rather the delegation of routine functions for the grant of permit is permissible to reduce the load of the STA, to avoid delays.
The Supreme Court observed that the new Act repealing an old Act would not require a Presidential Assent under Article 254 of the Constitution.
The Court rejected the argument that the repealing act needed presidential approval simply because the original act had received it. Instead, it said that if the repealing act corrects flaws in the old law, adapting it to current needs rather than renewing it, presidential assent is not necessary.
“Moreover, the argument that the repeal should have required fresh presidential assent is misplaced. A repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act's operative provisions; it is not subject to the same procedural requirements as an original enactment when it comes to the need for fresh assent, provided that the repeal falls within the legislative competence of the State.”, the court observed.
Supreme Court Criticises 'Undue Haste' Of Trial Court In Awarding Death Penalty In 2 Months Without Proper Opportunity For Defence
Case Details: Irfan v. State of Madhya Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1667-1668 of 2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 167
The Supreme Court while quashing the death penalty of the present appellant/accused, observed that the reliance on the DNA report without examining scientific experts led to the failure of justice, thereby, vitiating the trial.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta pointed out that the trial was completed in less than two months without giving the accused an appropriate opportunity to defend themselves. Thus, the trial process exhibited “undue haste.”
The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable., the Court reasoned.
S.498A IPC | When Family Relations Are Sought To Be Brought Under Criminal Proceedings, Courts Should Be Cautious: Supreme Court
Case Details: Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 168
The Supreme Court while quashing criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand and domestic violence against the present appellants, highlighted that invoking criminal laws in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials may have disastrous consequences for families.
“Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations.
For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.,” the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh added.
Arrest Illegal If Reasons Not Informed; When Art 22(1) Is Violated, Court Must Grant Bail Despite Statutory Restrictions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Noting that informing an arrested individual of the grounds for their arrest is a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stressed that this information must be conveyed clearly and effectively. The Court also emphasized the magistrate's duty to ensure compliance with Article 22(1) during remand, noting that any violation could warrant the person's release or justify the granting of bail, even in cases with statutory restrictions.
“Even if statutory restrictions on grant of bail exist, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh delivered separate but concurring judgments discussing the mandatory nature of informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court clarified that informing persons' relatives about their arrest does not exempt the police or investigating agency from their legal and constitutional obligation to inform the arrested persons themselves of the grounds for their arrest.
'Sorry State Of Affairs In Puducherry': Supreme Court Directs CVC Probe Into Illegal Appointments Of Polytechnic Lecturers
Case Details: Union of India Rep By Government of Puducherry & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors., SLP(C) No. 2868/2018
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 170
While directing a probe into illegal appointments of ad hoc lecturers in Puducherry, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordered the UT government to regularize services of 18 lecturers, without any involvement of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed the order, stating,
“we also direct that all the 18 incumbent lecturers (15 + 3) be regularized by the Government of Puducherry without any involvement of the UPSC. This order is passed in exercise of powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution.”
Non-payment Of Authorization Fee When Vehicle Was Within Its Registered State Won't Invalidate Its National Permit: Supreme Court
Case Details: Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 171
The Supreme Court held that insurers cannot deny claims solely due to non-renewal of a state permit if a valid national permit is in place. The Court clarified that if a vehicle catches fire within its registered state, non-payment of authorization fees for a state permit would not invalidate the claim.
The Court added that the authorization fee for renewal of state permit is only necessary when the vehicle is moved outside the State. Since the vehicle caught fire in its registered state (Bihar), the insurance company cannot deny the claim citing lack of renewal of state permit when national permit is in existence.
The Court rejected the insurance company's argument that non-payment of authorization fees for the state permit invalidates the existing national permit for securing insurance claims. Instead, it said that a National Permit remains valid even if an authorization fee is not paid, provided the vehicle is used within its home state
HC Closing Case Based On Respondent's Affidavit Without Giving Petitioner Chance To Respond Violates Natural Justice Principles: Supreme Court
Case Details: D.M. Jagadish v. Bangalore Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172
The Supreme Court, while quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by a development authority against the appellant, observed that the High Court's reliance on the authority's affidavit without providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond is violative of natural justice principles.
“We find that the approach of the Division bench in relying on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made in the said affidavit would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.,” held the bench of Justices B.R Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran.
Income Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20519 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 173
The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the “first offence” compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the “first offence” is the offence committed prior to the show cause notice, which was the case here for both years.
For Abetment Of Suicide Offence, Alleged Harassment Must Have Left Victim With No Other Alternative But To End Life: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 21115/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 174
The Supreme Court while quashing charges of abetment of suicide against the present appellants, reiterated that the alleged harassment should be of such nature that it leaves the victim with no other alternative but to end their life.
Further, the accused's intention to aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide must be established.
“In order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide.”
Supreme Court Acquits Man On Death Row, Cites Faulty Investigation & Gaps In Prosecution Case
Case Details: Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 175
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an accused (convicted of the death penalty) in a case for allegedly committing the gruesome murder of his six family members, including his four children and brother. The Court cited faulty investigation and flawed recovery of evidence by the Uttar Pradesh police.
“The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstances such as motive, last seen, and recoveries against the accused.
“the prosecution has failed to prove even one of the three so-called incriminating circumstances i.e., 'motive', 'last seen' and 'recoveries' in its quest to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused. Even if, for the sake of arguments the evidence of recovery of weapons were to be accepted, the fact remains that the FSL report does not give any indication regarding the grouping of the blood found on the weapons and hence, the recoveries are of no avail to the prosecution”, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta held.
S.141 NI Act | 'Director Who's In Charge Of Company' & 'Director Who's Responsible To Company' Are Different Aspects: Supreme Court
Case Details: Hitesh Verma v. M/S Health Care At Home India Pvt. Ltd., Diary No. – 29293/2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 176
The Supreme Court observed that there are twin requirements for an offence to fall under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which talks about the dishonour of a cheque committed by a company. Elucidating, the Court said that the accused person should be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business.
“There are twin requirements under sub-Section (1) of Section 141 of the 1881 Act. In the complaint, it must be alleged that the person, who is sought to be held liable by virtue of vicarious liability, at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. A Director who is in charge of the company and a Director who was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, are two different aspects. The requirement of law is that both the ingredients of sub-Section (1) of Section 141 of the 1881 Act must be incorporated in the complaint.,” the Court said.
'Abuse Of Process': Supreme Court Quashes 'Cheating' Case Filed Against Parents Of Man For Breaking Marriage Promise
Case Details: Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 177
The Supreme Court dismissed a cheating case (Section 415 IPC) against the parents for facilitating the marriage of their son to another woman instead of the complainant.
Given the complainant's maturity and background, including her 29 years of age, post-graduate degree, and professional experience, the Court found it difficult to believe the parents' conduct easily influenced her.
The Court observed the trial against the parents would be an “abuse of the process of law” and should be nipped in the bud.
'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause': Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account
Case Details: AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited v. Jatin Pratap Desai & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178
The Supreme Court held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause.
Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral award against a husband, finding him jointly liable for the award due to a debit balance in a joint demat account registered in his wife's name.
The Court rejected the contention that the husband's liability constituted a “private transaction” beyond the scope of arbitration. Instead, it held that the arbitration clause, applicable to non-signatories, in conjunction with the husband's active participation in transactions within his wife's account, gave rise to an implied oral agreement establishing joint and several liabilities for both parties.
FIR Inadmissible & Cannot Be Proved Through Investigating Officer If Informant Died A Natural Death: Supreme Court
Case Details: Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 179
The Supreme Court clarified that for an FIR lodged by a deceased person to hold any evidentiary value, its contents must be corroborated and proved. Elaborating, the Court said that if an informant's death has no connection whatsoever with a complaint lodged then the FIR's contents will not be admissible in evidence. Thus, in such cases, the contents cannot be proved through the investigating officer. In other words, unless an FIR is treated as a dying declaration, deposition of FIR contents by the officer would not make the same admissible.
The Court explained that the officer can only identify his and the informant's signature on the FIR. Apart from this, he can also depose about the factum of the FIR being registered by him on a particular date and a police station.
When Appointment Advertisement Is Null & Void, Entire Process Can Be Nullified Without Hearing Appointed Candidates: Supreme Court
Case Details: Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 180
The Supreme Court declared the 2010 recruitment process for Class-IV employees conducted by the Jharkhand government to be illegal and unconstitutional, thereby quashing the entire process. The Court further directed the state government to issue fresh advertisements for the said positions within a period of six months.
Citing factors such as non-mentioning of the number of posts, not specifying the applicable reservation, and changing rule of game mid-way on including interview rounds (not originally mentioned in the advertisement), the Court found the entire recruitment process was done in contravention to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict upholding the termination of several candidates by the Jharkhand High Court without providing an opportunity to hear them. The Court stated that the appointments made through an unconstitutional process cannot be protected, even if candidates have worked for years and were not heard before their appointment cancellation.
The Court observed that the advertisements inviting applications for public employment, which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection, are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.
“The advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency,” the Court observed relying on the judgment in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014).
“It is a trite law that a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment must include the total number of seats, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for the posts and procedural clarity with respect to the type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews.”, the Court further observed.
Supreme Court Reprimands Registry For Accepting Affidavit From Party Not Impleaded, Seeks Report On Its Working
Case Details: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 181
The Supreme Court again expressed strong displeasure with its Registry's repeated procedural lapses. This time the Court criticized the registry officials for accepting a counter-affidavit from an individual who was not even impleaded as a party in the case.
The Court noted that the Registry is accepting documents from persons not even parties to the case without caveats and often in illegible form. Despite judicial orders highlighting non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules in SLP registrations, the Court said no corrective action appears to have been taken till date.
Based on the aforementioned observation, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) “to submit the report and apprise the Court on the next date as to whether any follow-up action is taken on the Judicial Orders passed by the Court on the working of the Registry, and if yes, what actions have been taken so far.”
Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Police Investigation On Statements Before Justice Hema Committee Regarding Women's Exploitation In Malayalam Cinema
Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 182
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the directions of the Kerala High Court to register FIRs based on the depositions given by witnesses/victims before the Justice Hema Committee regarding the sexual exploitation of women in the Malayalam cinema field.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that once an information regarding the commisison of cognizable offence is received, the police officer is bound to proceed under the law and that there cannot be a direction to injunct the police's powers to investigate.
The bench pronounced the order disposing of the Special Leave Petitions filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actors challenging the direction issued by the Kerala High Court in October last year.
'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant
Case Details: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 183
The Supreme Court reprimanded the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for alleging that the Court recorded in its order a statement by the lawyer, even though the lawyer never made such a statement.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made against the Court. “We are shocked to read allegations made in the applications. The allegation made is that, though we have recorded statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, in fact, no such statement was made before us. We are shocked to know that such allegations are being made against the court, and that also in absence of the lawyers who were present on that day.”
The bench strongly condemned the allegations, stating, “This is an allegation directly made against the court, that we have recorded a statement which was not made across the bar. We deprecate such tendency on the part of the applicants. Moreover, the advocates who appeared on that day have not shown their face today.”
The Court dictated that it was imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakhs on the Corporation for each application for making such allegations.
Imprisonment Of Judgment Debtor Drastic Step, Court Must Ascertain If Decree Was Wilfully Disobeyed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal, Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 184
The Supreme Court observed that imprisonment of a judgment debtor is a drastic step and to exercise such power, the Court must ensure that the judgment debtor wilfully disobeyed its order.
“Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor is no doubt a drastic step and would prevent him from moving anywhere he likes, but once it is proved that he had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court. Failure to exercise this power in appropriate cases might verily undermine the respect for judicial institutions in the eyes of litigants.,” observed the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Also from the judgment - Imprisonment Of Judgment Debtor Drastic Step, Court Must Ascertain If Decree Was Wilfully Disobeyed: Supreme Court
Grandparents Cannot Have Better Claim Than Father For Child's Custody: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 185
The Supreme Court allowed a father to get the custody of his child from maternal grandparents, observing that grandparents cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard a father's appeal against the High Court's rejection of his habeas corpus petition. The High Court had denied him custody of his child, who had lived with him for about 10 years until the mother's death and was later placed with maternal grandparents, citing the child's comfort with the grandparents and the father's remarriage.
Following this, the Father appealed to the Supreme Court.
Motor Accident Compensation | Disability Certified By Medical Board Cannot Be Reduced Without Ordering Re-Assessment: Supreme Court
Case Details: Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 186
The Supreme Court ruled that a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board should be accepted as such, being expert evidence. The disability percentage cannot be reduced by questioning the Medical Board's findings without ordering a reassessment.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which reduced the compensation granted to the Appellant (who suffered multiple injuries in a collision and is currently in a comatose state) based on the 100% disability certificate issued by the medical board. Both the MACT and the High Court considered it to be 50%, questioning the validity of the Medical Board's assessment due to the absence of specific testimony from a neurosurgeon.
Compassionate Appointment To Be Granted Only In “Hand-to-Mouth” Cases, Not Due To Mere Fall In Life Standard: Supreme Court
Case Details: Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 187
The Supreme Court, while determining a case related to compassionate appointment, observed that such appointment should be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, provided that all the other conditions are fulfilled. Explaining, the Court said that such situations would include a family 'below the poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses.
“It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.”
The Court also said that the underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in case of an employee's death is that he/ she was the sole earner for the family. The Court said that there is no straitjacket formula to be applied uniformly in cases of employee dying in harness. Each case has its own peculiar features and the financial condition must be assessed.
Also from the judgment - Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Flags Conflicting Judgments On Whether Scheme Prevalent On Date Of Death Or Date Of Consideration Applies
Supreme Court Relaxes Rule On Listing Bail Pleas Before Same Judge When Roster Changes
Case Details: Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. Registrar General Jharkhand High Court
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 188
The Supreme Court clarified its earlier judgments which mandated that bail applications arising out of the same FIR should be placed before the same bench/judge, taking note of the practical difficulties which arise after roster changes.
If the judge who dealt with the earlier bail application becomes a part of a division bench after a roster change, then the subsequent bail application by another accused in the same FIR might get a delayed listing, as the said judge is not regularly hearing bail applications.
In view of such difficulties, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran clarified that the rule for listing the bail applications before the same judge would not apply in such scenarios, where the previous judge is no longer hearing bail applications due to roster change.
Lottery Distributor Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: Supreme Court Rejects Union's Appeals
Case Details: Union of India and Ors. v. Future Gaming Solutions P. Ltd. and Anr. Etc., C.A. No. 4289-4290/2013 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 189
The Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the High Court of Sikkim which declared as unconstitutional clause (zzzzn) of the Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2010.
The said clause introduced the activity of “promotion, marketing, organising or in any other manner assisting in organising game of chance, including lottery” as a new category of taxable service.
By the said order, a bench of then Chief Justice Permod Kohli and S.P. Wangdi of the High Court struck down clause (zzzzn) of the Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010, as ultra vires to the Constitution.
Mention Of S.307 IPC In FIR Doesn't Bar Quashing Of Case On Settlement If Offence Isn't Made Out From Allegations: Supreme Court
Case Details: Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190
The Supreme Court observed that mere mentioning of the non-compoundable offence in an FIR does not bar the High Court from quashing the case based on a compromise, if upon closer scrutiny, the facts do not support the charge.
Citing factors such as the nature of the offense, the severity of injuries, the conduct of the accused, and the impact of crime on society, the Court emphasized that even non-compoundable cases can be quashed based on a compromise.
A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC (non-compoundable offence) even though a compromise had been arrived between the parties.
No Rigid Rule That Convict Should Undergo Half Of Sentence For Bail At Appellate Stage: Supreme Court
Case Details: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 191
The Supreme Court has clarified that to suspend sentence during the pendency of appeal, a rigid rule cannot be applied that the convict must have undergone half of the substantive sentence. If a case for grant of relief is otherwise made on merits, the appellate court can grant bail or suspend sentence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made this significant observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau against an order of the High Court suspending the convict's sentence. The convict was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act. The High Court noted that he had undergone a substantial period of incarceration (4.5 years). The NCB argued that the High Court could not have suspended the sentence as the accused had not undergone half of the sentence.
Senior's Reprimand At Workplace For Official Duties Not Criminal Offence Of 'Intentional Insult' Under S 504 IPC: Supreme Court
Case Details: B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 192
The Supreme Court held that a verbal reprimand at the workplace concerning official duties does not amount to a criminal offense under Section 504 IPC ('intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace').
The Court observed that if the employer or superior official does not question employees work performance, then failing to address an employee's misconduct could set a precedent, encouraging others to behave similarly.
“If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces. Therefore, in our opinion, senior's admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an 'intentional insult with the intent to provoke' within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein.”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta quashed the case against the Director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID), Secunderabad who reprimanded the complainant in front of colleagues following multiple complaints by parents of the students about her negligence in performing her duties.
Article 226 | Writ Court Can Refuse Action Against Illegality To Do Substantial Justice: Supreme Court
Case Details: M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1188/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 193
The Supreme Court reiterated that the writ court does not interfere in cases of mere violation of any statutory provision or norms unless the same has caused injustice. Placing its reliance upon Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana., (1980) 2 SCC 437., the Court said:
“It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not.”
“It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.”
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added that the power of High Courts to issue certain writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. Thus, even if the challenged order is invalid, the High Court can refuse to interfere to do substantial justice between the parties.
Order XXII Rule 4 CPC | No Separate Prayer To Set Aside Abatement Needed If Application To Substitute Legal Heirs Is Filed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 194
The Supreme Court held that if an appeal abates due to the failure to substitute legal heirs, filing a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC eliminates the need for a separate application to set aside the abatement.
“When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice.”, the court observed.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra heard the case, where the High Court had recalled the restoration of the second appeal, stating that it could not have been restored without an application to set aside the abatement.
Also from the judgment - Order XXII Rule 4 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Correct Procedure To File Applications To Substitute Legal Heirs, Set Aside Abatement & Condone Delay
Permanent Alimony & Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even When Marriage Is Void Under Hindu Marriage Act: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 195
Answering a reference, the Supreme Court ruled that permanent alimony and interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be granted even when the marriage has been declared void.
“A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary”, the Court held.
Also Read - Know The Law | Distinction Between 'Equitable Mortgage' And 'Legal Mortgage': Supreme Court Explains
Regarding the grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, the Court observed:
“Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.”.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling in response to a reference made by a 2-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath last year.
Also from the judgment - Calling A Woman 'Illegitimate Wife' Or 'Faithful Mistress' Violates Her Rights: Supreme Court Criticises Misogynistic Language In Judgment
UP Gangsters Act | Strict Scrutiny Essential When FIR Registered Under Stringent Laws: Supreme Court
Case Details: Jay Kishan and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 196
The Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny of the FIR is required registered under stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act to prevent its misuse in property or financial disputes.
The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be disregarded solely based on the registration of a criminal offense. Furthermore, it ruled that authorities cannot be given unrestricted discretion in invoking the stringent provisions of the Act.
“Ultimately, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person. It would be plainly unwise to accord any unfettered discretion to the authorities concerned when it comes to invoking the Act. The more stringent or penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it to be strictly construed.”, the court observed.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah quashed a criminal case against three individuals registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”), upon noting that a property dispute between the parties led to the culmination of an FIR under the Gangsters Act.
Supreme Court Quashes Appointment Of Chairperson Of National Commission For Homeopathy
Case Details: Dr. Amaragouda L v. Union of India and Ors., | C.A. No. 301-303/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 197
The Supreme Court allowed a civil appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as the chairperson of the National Commission for Homoeopathy.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the appointment was not in accordance with the law and directed Dr. Khurana to leave the office within a week. Officially, Dr. Khurana has 6 months to demit office.
The order states:
“The Respondent shall stepdown from the office of Chairperson forthwith. By forthwith, we mean a week from today to enable him to complete his assignment however without taking any policy decision involved with finances. Fresh process shall be initiated for appointment of the office of chairperson expeditiously. Benefits received by the 3rd Respondent are not touched. However, future benefit shall enure to him on the basis of service rendered him as chairperson, which stands quashed, beyond seven days from date.”
'Every Statute Prima Facie Prospective Unless Stated Otherwise': Supreme Court Says 2002 Amendment To CST Act Won't Affect Accrued Rights
Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prism Cement Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13928 of 2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 198
The Supreme Court held that though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government's right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the amendment is prospective. Thus, it would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.
The amended Act nowhere stipulates that rights previously accrued stand nullified or all previous exemptions stand cancelled or revoked., the bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.
Young Advocates Must Volunteer To Assist Poor Litigants; Must Break Misconception That Supreme Court Is Accessible Only To Wealthy: SC
Case Details: Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors | Special Leave Petition (C) No.17157 OF 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 199
The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of advocates rendering legal services to the needy, without caring for the monetary returns. The Court expressed its appreciation for a young advocate who rendered legal aid to a party-in-person.
The Court expressed that it was a “rare joy” to witness such a selfless service “amidst the rapid commercialization and competition which the legal profession has fallen prey to.”
The Court stressed that a crucial aspect of the legal profession is “the role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those with limited means, and to collectively assist in ensuring that the litigant before a court has an assurance of having secured justice at the hands of the courts and particularly from the Apex Court.”
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made these observations while deciding a petition filed by a party-in-person for certain claims against a company. Since the party was finding it difficult to make submissions in English, the Court appointed Advocate Mr. Sanchar Anand as an amicus curiae for assistance. The amicus attended fourteen hearings of the case for over two years and helped in reaching a settlement. Although no fees was forthcoming, the Court noted that the amicus “dedicatedly” appeared in the matter and assisted in reaching a just and proper conclusion to this case.
The Supreme Court raised concerns about the rising cost of litigation, which prevented persons without adequate financial means from accessing justice.
Uncomfortable Questions Posed During Judicial Proceedings Can't Be Regarded As Humiliation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Smt. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 200
The Supreme Court observed that statements made in court, and even uncomfortable questions posed to parties, cannot be considered public humiliation, as these actions are necessary for the court to fulfill its duty of ascertaining the truth.
“During court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.”, the court observed.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case, where the petitioner challenged statements and uncomfortable questions raised during writ proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court.
Money Laundering Serious Offence, Courts Can't Grant Bail Casually Without Considering S.45 PMLA Conditions: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India Through Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201
The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to the individual accused of committing money laundering after noting that the High Court failed to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).
The Court reiterated that the conditions enumerated in Section 45 will have to be complied with even in respect of application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Also, Section 24 provides that in case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. Therefore, the burden to proof that proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering would lie on the person charged with the offence.
Income Tax Act | No Penalty Under S.271AAA If Undisclosed Income Is Admitted, Explained & Tax Paid Even With Delay: Supreme Court
Case Details: K Krishnamurthy v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 202
The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.
Essentially, the said provision talks about penalty where a search has been initiated. The explanation reads as:
“(a) “Undisclosed income” means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or……”
In this context, the Apex Court explained that before levying any penalty, the Assessing Officer must satisfy the condition provided in the above explanation.
“Consequently, it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate and prove that undisclosed income of the specified previous year was found during the course of search or as a result of the search.,” the Court added.
Portion Of S. 161 CrPC Statement Used To Contradict Witness Must Be Proved Through Investigating Officer & Marked: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 203
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a man after noting that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for contradicting the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination with their previously recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the trial court erred by merely reproducing the contradicted portions of the witness's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements in brackets without properly proving the prior statement through the investigating officer. Clarifying the correct procedure, the Court emphasized that when a witness is cross-examined using their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the specific portion used for contradiction must first be formally introduced as evidence through the investigating officer before it can be considered.
The Court stressed that the portion of the previous Section 161 statement would be considered for contradiction only when they are proved through the investigation officer
Supreme Court Upholds Meghalaya Govt's Order To Dissolve Private University For Mismanagement
Case Details: CMJ Foundation v. State of Meghalaya., Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 204
The Supreme Court upheld the decision taken by the Meghalaya Government in 2014 to dissolve the Chander Mohan Jha (CMJ) University, a private University.
The Court also held that the University's decision to self-appoint a Chancellor, without the approval of the Visitor (Governor) was illegal. The State Government ordered the dissolution of the University, by invoking powers under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act for “mismanagement, maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University.”
The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta noted that the CMJ University was established under the CMJ University Act, 2009 enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Pertinently, as per the Act, the Sponsor was required to appoint a person suitable to be the Chancellor of the University 'subject to the approval of the Visitor'.
Interest May Be Denied To Party Who Abused Judicial Process: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S. Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 205
While interest is usually granted as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code in commercial disputes to account for the time value of money, the Supreme Court clarified that it may be denied in cases where a party's conduct breaches contractual obligations and undermines judicial authority.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan denied interest on the refund of the forfeited amount, observing that the appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands, engaged in forum shopping by withdrawing a suit from the High Court to file another in a lower court, and failed to comply with the Court's order to deposit ₹15 crores.
“We are conscious of the fact that as a general principle, in commercial disputes, the award of interest pendente lite or post decree is typically granted as a matter of course. This is because such interest serves to compensate the aggrieved party for the time value of money that was due but withheld during the legal process. It reflects an established norm aimed at ensuring fairness and equity in commercial transactions.”, the court said.
Bombay Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty If Possession Is Granted: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr.
Citation: 2025 Livelw (SC) 206
The Supreme Court observed that an agreement to sell specifying delivery of the possession of the property would be deemed as 'conveyance' and would be subject to the stamp duty as per the Bombay Stamp Act.
Emphasizing that stamp duty is levied on the instrument (agreement) and not the transaction, the Court held that even an agreement to sell could attract stamp duty if it grants possession of the property to the buyer, even though the actual transfer of ownership would occur upon the execution of the sale deed.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the case relating to the Bombay Stamp Act where the Appellant was aggrieved by the trial court's and High Court's decision to levy stamp duty on the agreement to sell, which granted possessory rights to him even though the actual ownership would take place on the execution of the sale deed.
Supreme Court Upholds Govt's Power To Withdraw Promise Of Rebate In Larger Public Interest
Case Details: Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 207
While upholding the Goa Government's order to recover the previously granted electricity tariff rebates from several industrial companies, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the government's power to withdraw or modify economic incentives in the interest of public finances.
The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be rigidly enforced in situations where the government's promises to provide incentives conflict with public interest. Specifically, if the rebates or incentives place an undue burden on the public exchequer or state finances, the doctrine may not be applicable.
Principle Of 'Functus Officio' Does Not Apply To Executive Rule-Making Authority: Supreme Court
Case Details: P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas., SLP(Civil) No. 4036-4038 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 208
The Supreme Court on February 12 observed that the principle of functus officio does not apply to a rule making authority and applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority. It cannot be disputed that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio, the Court said.
“The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.”
Filing Of Fresh Bail Application After Rejection Of Earlier Bail Plea Or Cancellation Of Bail Is A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vipin Kumar v. State of UP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 209
The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a bail application solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted the filing of a fresh application.
The Court reiterated that the filing of a fresh bail application, after the dismissal of an earlier bail application or the cancellation of the bail granted, was a right.
“Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application,” observed a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti.
Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest: Supreme Court
Case Details: Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr.| Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 2783/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 210
The Supreme Court upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was observed that a request to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the public interest, cannot be declined. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said:
“We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”
If Accused Is To Get Final Verdict After 6-7 Years In Jail As Undertrial, It Means Right To Speedy Trial Is Violated : Supreme Court
Case Details: Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 211
“Howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution,” expressed the Supreme Court while granting bail to an accused charged under the UAPA who has been under custody for over five years.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan granted bail to the accused who was arrested by the Chhattisgarh Police on the allegations of carrying articles ordinarily used relating to the Naxalite Activities.
Against Wrongful Dismissal, Lumpsum Compensation Could Be Better Remedy Than Reinstatement With Backwages In Certain Cases : Supreme Court
Case Details: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 212
The Supreme Court observed that a grant of lumpsum compensation could be the more appropriate remedy in cases of wrongful dismissal of an employee instead of reinstatement with back wages in certain cases. While directing such compensation, the courts are required to justify their approach, keeping in mind the interests of the employee and the employer.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty For Lack Of Fair Trial
Case Details: Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 259-260 of 2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 213
The Supreme Court set aside the death sentence of a man accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, after noting that he was denied a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta allowed the man's appeal, overturning the Allahabad High Court's decision that had convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty. The Court noted several lapses in the trial resulting in the denial of a fair trial.
Charitable Trust's Registration For Income Tax Exemption To Be Decided Based On Proposed Activities & Not Actual Activities : Supreme Court
Case Details: Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions v. M/S International Health Care Education and Research Institute
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 214
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a charitable trust applies under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) for income tax exemptions (under Sections 10 and 11), the tax authorities should decide on the registration based on the charity's “proposed activities” than its actual activities, as stated in the Ananda Social case.
The Court, however, clarified that mere registration under Section 12-AA would not entitle a charitable trust to claim exemption under Sections 10 and 11 respectively of the Act, 1961, and the authorities can decline the grant of exemption if the materials produced by the trust do not seem convincing for grant of exemption.
“When a return is filed by any trust claiming exemption it is for the assessing officer to look into all the materials and satisfy itself whether the exemption has been claimed genuinely or not. If the assessing officer is not convinced it is always open for him to decline grant of exemption.”, the court observed.
Test Identification Parade Loses Evidentiary Value When Witness Who Identified Accused Wasn't Examined In Trial : Supreme Court
Case Details: Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 215
The Supreme Court acquitted an accused after noting that the person who witnessed the accused during the Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) was not examined during the trial.
The Court stressed that unless the person who witnessed the accused during the TIP is not examined in trial, then the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict the witness would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification.
“Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification. The rationale behind the aforesaid legal principle is that unless the witness enters the witness box and submits himself for cross examination how can it be ascertained as to on what basis he identified the person or the article. Because it is quite possible that before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. Be that as it may, once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness.”, the court observed.
Payment Of Gratuity Act | Conviction In Criminal Case Not Required For Gratuity Forfeiture, Dismissal For Moral Turpitude Enough : Supreme Court
Case Details: Western Coal Fields Ltd. v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 216
The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal conviction is not required for gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity can be forfeited if the employee's misconduct itself constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.
The Court clarified the law laid down in the case of Union Bank of India and Ors. vs. C.G. Ajay Babu (2018), stating that the observation made in CG Ajay Babu's case that the forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only upon the criminal conviction was an obiter remark having no binding effect.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran considered whether gratuity can be forfeited when employment is terminated due to misconduct constituting an offence involving moral turpitude, even without a criminal conviction or proceeding.
Contractor Can't Be Blacklisted On Mere Allegation Of Contractual Breach Without Anything More : Supreme Court
Case Details: Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation., Arising Out of SLP(C) No.10042/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 217
The Supreme Court observed that though an authority has inherent power to blacklist a contractor, such power must be exercised on a reasonable ground. It also observed that even at the stage of issuing a show cause notice, the guiding principles laid by the Court should be followed.
“Therefore, the Authority is expected to be very careful before issuing a show cause notice. It is expected to understand the facts well and try to ascertain what sort of violation is said to have been committed by the contractor. As noted above, there is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power.”
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added that an order of blacklisting is a drastic step as it would put an end to the business of the person concerned. Placing its reliance on Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of W.B. reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, the Court highlighted that passing of such an order against every contractor who is in breach of his contractual obligations, would be unreasonable and arbitrary.
S. 34 IPC | Mere Presence At Crime Scene As Spectator Doesn't Establish Common Intention Unless Active Participation Proven: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Observing that mere presence at the crime scene doesn't establish common intention unless active participation is proven, the Supreme Court acquitted the husband alleged to have actively participated with his mother in setting his wife ablaze.
“A person present on the scene might or might not be guilty by the application of Section 34, IPC. If he is present on the scene for the purpose of participating in the offence, he would certainly be guilty as a participator in the offence. On the other hand, if he is present there merely as a spectator, he would not be guilty.”, the Court explained.
The Court stated that “every person charged with the aid of Section 34, must in some form or the other participate in the offence in order to make him liable thereunder.”
Supreme Court Allows AYUSH Students To Retain Degrees Though They Didn't Take Admission Through NEET-UG
Case Details: Ebtesham Khatoon v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 6658/2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 219
The Supreme Court allowed certain students of under-graduate AYUSH courses to retain their degrees although their admissions were not taken through the NEET-UG exam.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, observing that withholding the students' result, after they had completed their course, would cause immense hardship to them.
“It is true that admission to candidates who had not appeared in NEET examination could not have been given by the College, yet as of now these students have completed their course and to withhold the exam results or their Degree will cause immense hardship to them” it said.
Supreme Court Directs States To Consider Premature Release Of Convicts When They Become Eligible Even Without Their Applications
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 220
The Supreme Court today(February 18) passed certain directions on the power of the Government to remit the whole or part of the sentence of the convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the CrPC') and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih held that the power to grant remission can be exercised without convict or anyone on behalf of the conviction applying to the appropriate Government.
Benefit Of Input Tax Credit Can't Be Reduced Without Statutory Sanction : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab & Ors. v. Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 221
The Supreme Court held that Rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which was notified on January 25, 2014, could not be applied to transactions before April 1, 2014, as the enabling amendment to Section 13 of the parent statute, the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, was effective from that date.
This means businesses that bought goods at a higher tax rate before this date are not subject to the limitation imposed by Rule 21(8) when claiming ITC, even if the tax rate was later lowered.
Rule 21(8) states that if the rate of tax on certain goods is reduced, then the input tax credit (ITC) on those goods lying in stock would also be admissible only at the reduced rate from the date of the tax reduction.
The core issue before the bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was whether the introduction of Rule 21(8) during the period from January 25, 2014, to April 1, 2014, was valid in the absence of an enabling provision in the parent statute, the Punjab VAT Act.
“The benefit of input tax credit is traceable to the statute. If the same has to be reduced, which will have an adverse civil consequence upon the beneficiary, it must have the requisite statutory sanction. In this case, the statutory sanction came on and from 01.04.2014 with the amendment of the first proviso to Section 13(1) of the Punjab VAT Act. Therefore, the High Court was justified in holding that prior to 01.04.2014, there was no statutory sanction to allow applicability of Rule 21(8) on the stock in trade i.e. on inputs already purchased for which transactions stood concluded at a higher rate of tax”, the Court answered.
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Over Times Of India Article, Advises Media To Exercise Caution Before Publishing Content
Case Details: Jaideep Bose v. M/S Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited | SLP (Crl) No. 10212/2024 and Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 222
The Supreme Court today(February 18) quashed a 2014 criminal defamation case against Jaideep Bose, the Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, which publishes the newspaper Times of India. The Court also quashed the proceedings against co-accused Nergish Sunavala, Swati Deshpande and Neelam Raj, who were working as correspondents/editors at the Times of India then.
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court and the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused in the defamation case initiated by M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited over an article published in the newspaper, which allegedly implied that counterfeit artworks were being put up for auction.
S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme Court
Case Details: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 818/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 223
The Supreme Court observed that courts should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with applications under Section 437(6) of CrPC in cases where there is no chance of evidence tampering, absconding, or accused delaying the trial.
“Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution.,” the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.
'She Went With Him Voluntarily' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Kidnapping Girl Aged Between 16-18 Yrs For Marriage
Case Details: Tilku Alias Tilak Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 224
The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of kidnapping a minor girl, ruling that the girl had willingly left with him and was living with him as his wife. The Court found that the essential elements of “taking” or “enticing” a minor away from the lawful guardian were not met, leading to the acquittal.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution alleged that the Appellant along with his father and other relatives kidnapped the prosecutrix/minor girl from a village in February 1994. After search and investigation, the prosecutrix was found to reside with the Appellant in Dehradun.
Supreme Court Upholds NEET Qualification Mandate To Pursue MBBS From Foreign Universities
Case Details: Arunaditya Dubey v. Medical Council of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No.1205 of 2019 (And Connected Cases)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 225
The Supreme Court upheld Medical Council of India's(now National Medical Commission) regulations mandating that those desirous of studying in foreign medical institutions shall qualify the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) in order to obtain an Eligibility Certificate.
“The requirement of an Eligibility Certificate from the Medical Council had been provided by section 13(4B) by an amendment in the year 2001 and the incorporation of sub-Clause (iv) under Clause 8 in the year 2018; mandating qualification in the NEET exam, ensures a fair and transparent procedure in the grant of Eligibility Certificate. The regulation does not in any manner conflict with the enactment...We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the regulations”, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran observed.
Mortgage Created By Deposit Of Title Deeds Prevails Over Equitable Mortgage Created By Deposit Of Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court
Case Details: Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 226
The Supreme Court has held that a mortgage created by the deposit of an unregistered agreement to sell will be subservient to a mortgage which was created by the deposit of title deeds.
This is because an agreement of sale does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as explained by the judgments in Suraj Lamps and Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain.
The Court agreed that the deposit of an incomplete title deed can create a mortgage, which is 'equitable' in nature. However, such an 'equitable mortgage' will be inferior to a 'legal mortgage' created by the deposit of proper title deeds.
When Second FIR Can Be Registered : Supreme Court Outlines Key Circumstances
Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 227
The Supreme Court (February 19) ruled that while a second FIR for the same offence is impermissible, a second FIR for a different offence is permissible.
The Court stated that the nature of the allegations in both FIRs must be examined to determine the permissibility of registering a subsequent FIR.
The Court narrated the following circumstances when the registration of a second FIR is permissible:
“1. When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
2. When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
3. When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
4. When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
5. Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.
Dowry Demand Not Necessary For S.498A IPC Offence If Physical Or Mental Cruelty To Wife Is Established : Supreme Court
Case Details: Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors., SLP(Crl.) No. 9243 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 228
The Supreme Court observed that a dowry demand is not a prerequisite to constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. The Court explained that this provision recognizes two distinct forms of cruelty. Firstly, physical or mental harm and secondly, harassment which forces the wife to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
The Court observed that though these two forms of cruelty can co-exist, the absence of dowry demand does not exclude the application of this Section in cases of mental or physical harassment.
“The absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.”
Supreme Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Citing Trial Delay & Long Custody, Distinguishes Recent Precedent
Case Details: Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 229
Citing prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of delay in the completion of the trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused in a money laundering case.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of Udhaw Singh, who had been in custody for 14 months. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had listed 225 witnesses for examination, yet only one has been examined so far.
Moreover, the interesting facet of the case was that the bench clarified the order passed by the bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case of Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, where the Court, citing non-fulfillment of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, canceled the bail granted to the PMLA accused. While granting bail in the present case, the bench le by Justice Oka provided an explanation or interpretation of why the Justice Trivedi-led bench might have reached the decision it did in the Kanhaiya Prasad case.
'Can't Assume Indian Manufacturers Are Incapable' : Supreme Court Criticises Gwalior Municipality For Restricting Tender To Foreign Companies
Case Details: Omega Elevators v. State of M.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 230
The Supreme Court criticized the Gwalior Municipal Corporation (GMC) for its arbitrary tendering process, allowing only multinational brands to submit bids, purportedly to ensure quality assurance.
The Court noted that the GMC's action of excluding Indian firms from the tender process suggested a belief that they were inherently incapable of competing with multinational corporations or providing comparable services.
Also Read - Sensitive Work Environment Must Be Ensured For Growing Number Of Women Judicial Officers : Supreme Court
“Admittedly, all 10 companies flagged by the GMC as eligible in the NIT are multi-national corporations, and are all based outside India. This fact clearly indicates that the GMC ostensibly believes that a company's status as a global entity ipso facto confers on it the requisite repute and expertise necessary to undertake the specified works. In our considered opinion, it is wholly untenable to argue that Indian manufacturers (such as the present appellant) are inherently incapable of competing with international products, or that any service tendered by them would be of an inferior nature.”
“We, in no uncertain terms, disapprove of such presumptive practices”, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh said.
Vehicle Insurance Condition That Claim Will Be Accepted Only If Accident Occurs Within Premises Of Insured Is Absurd : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Tarapore and Co v. United India Insurance Company Limited., Civil Appeal No. 2387 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 231
The Supreme Court (on February 12) observed that an insurance policy condition that the insurer would not be liable if the vehicle is used in any place other than the insured's premises is absurd. Given that the insured vehicle was a crane, the Court expressed its disappointment and said that cranes are always used at construction sites, and neither party pointed out this condition.
“The understanding of the Insurance Company is that it is only in the event of the accident occurring within the premises i.e. the place mentioned in the insurance policy that the claim is liable to be sanctioned.
Prima facie it appears that neither of the parties paid attention to such an absurd condition. The appellant at the time of purchase of the crane and while getting it insured could have pointed out to the insurance company that how do you accept us to use the crane in our office. A crane is always used at the construction sites. At the same time even the Insurance Company kept themselves silent in this regard. Even the Insurance Company could have said that how do you intend to use the crane in your office.,” observed the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Flags Two Concerns With Senior Designation Process, Refers Matter To CJI
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court expressed certain concerns with the senior designation system, which has been laid down as per the two judgments rendered by the Top Court in the Indira Jaising case in 2017 and 2023.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, clarifying that it was not disrespecting the two binding decisions, was only recording the concerns to enable the Chief Justice of India to take an appropriate decision on a larger bench reference.
The Court expressed doubts about the current system, particularly the process of self-application for designation, the practice of interviews for assessing personality and suitability, and the allocation of points based on experience without considering active practice.
The Court also held that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) bear full responsibility for the accuracy of petitions filed before the Court, even if the drafts are prepared by other advocates. The Court warned against AoRs merely lending their names to petitions without due diligence, stressing that any misconduct could lead to action under Rule 10 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Under Rule 10, if an AoR is found guilty of misconduct, the Court can order the removal of the AoR's name from the register, either permanently or for a specified period, with reports sent to the Bar Council of India and the relevant State Bar Council.
'Mediation Cannot Be Forced Without Consent Of Both Parties' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC's Mediation Reference In Contempt Matter
Case Details: Rupa and Co. Limited and Another v. Firhad Hakim and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 233
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the Calcutta High Court 'directing' parties to mediation without the consent of both the parties, that too in a contempt proceeding. It emphasized that mediation is only permissible when both parties consent to resolving the dispute through that process.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing a petition arising out of the Calcutta High Court's decision where, in a contempt petition, instead of holding the State guilty of contempt for not complying with the judicial order, it had referred the matter to mediation despite an opposition from the Appellant.
Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Interdicting Insolvency Process Against Personal Guarantor At Threshold Stage In Writ Jurisdiction
Case Details: Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2759/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 234
The Supreme Court while deciding an appeal pertaining to insolvency proceedings initiated against a personal guarantor, observed that the High Court should not have prohibited such proceedings by holding that the guarantor's liability has been waived.
“It is well-settled that when statutory tribunals are constituted to adjudicate and determine certain questions of law and fact, the High Courts do not substitute themselves as the decision-making authority while exercising judicial review.,” the bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Mishra observed.
Kerala Paddy Land Act | No Exemption From Conversion Fee If Land Exceeds 25 Cents : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Kerala v. Moushmi Ann Jacob, Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 25736- 25737/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 235
The Supreme Court held that exemption from conversion fee as per Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetlands Act, 2008 will not apply to properties exceeding 25 cents.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court which held that the conversion fee for a land, which has an extent of more than 25 cents, should be computed after reducing 25 cents.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held that the Kerala High Court erred in interpreting the true intent of the notification issued by the Kerala Government on 25th February 2021 granting exemption from paying reclamation fee in respect of lands up to 25 cents. As per Section 27A, conversion fee is 10% of the fair value of the land. The Supreme Court held that the notification's intent was to exempt small landholdings, which are less than 25 cents, from conversion fee. The notification cannot be interpreted as holding that conversion fee need not be paid for land up to 25 cents when a large landholding in excess of 25 cents is sought to be converted.
'Both Hands Intact' Condition For MBBS Admission Of Persons With Disabilities Arbitrary : Supreme Court
Case Details: Anmol v. Union of India & Ors | Civil Appeal No. 14333 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 236
The Supreme Court held that the eligibility condition prescribed by the National Medical Commission's guidelines that candidates with disabilities must have “both hands intact, with intact sensation and sufficient strength” for admission to MBBS course was arbitrary and antithetical to the Constitution.
The Guidelines regarding admission of students with “Specified Disabilities”, which constitute Appendix H-1 to the Graduate Medical Education Regulations (Amendment), 2019, stated one of the conditions to be as:
“Both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion are essential to be considered eligible for medical course.”
Finding this condition to be against the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and also the Constitution, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan allowed the petitioner, a candidate with disability, to secure admission to MBBS course in the Government Medical College, Sirohi, Rajasthan
Courts Should Avoid Interference When Appointing Authority Has Accepted Equivalence Of Qualifications: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sajid Khan v. L Rahmathullah., Civil Appeal No. 17308 of 2017
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 237
The Supreme Court observed that while recruiting, if the appointing authority has not objected to the candidate's qualifications and there is no glaring difference between the specified qualification and the candidate's qualification, the Court's interference by setting aside the appointment is unwarranted. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence., the Court said.
“In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration.,” observed P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra.
Foreigners Tribunal Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Its Own Judgment & Reopen Concluded Issue Of Citizenship: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rejia Khatun @ Rezia Khatun v. Union of India & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12481/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 238
The Supreme Court held that a Foreigners Tribunal has no power to reopen a case by sitting in appeal over its own concluded judgment.
The Court set aside an order of the Foreigners Tribunal which reopened an inquiry into the citizenship of a person, despite its earlier judgment which held the person to be. an Indian citizen.
Odisha Pension Rules | Job Contractors Not Entitled To Pension For Pre-Regularisation Period Unlike Work-Charged Employees : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 239
The Supreme Court has held that 'work-charged employees' are distinct from 'job contractors' when it comes to pensionary entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992.
Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Court observed:
“There is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work-charged establishment vis¬à¬vis those who are in job contract establishment. The distinction becomes obvious from a bare perusal of sub-Rules 3 and 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 where it is given that work-charged employees who have worked in the establishment for a period of five years or more without interruption and are subsequently appointed to the same or another post in temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment, the period of service rendered by him/her in a work-charged establishment shall qualify for pension under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Compare this with the provision relating to job contract establishment for whom it has been specifically stated that in case of a job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable establishment, only that much period as job contract service shall be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible for pensionary benefits.”
Departing from the usual practice of rejecting time-barred pleas filed after excessive delay, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Odisha's batch of belated petitions concerning the distribution of pensionary benefits to employees.
Physical Presence Not Necessary In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Supreme Court Quashes Magistrate's Order To Extradite Husband From US
Case Details: Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors., Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
The Supreme Court (on February 20) observed that, in proceedings under the Domestic Violence, there is no requirement for a party to be personally present as such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Elaborating, the Court said that such proceedings have no penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, under Section 31 of the Act.
“We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings.”, the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta said.
Prevention Of Corruption Act | Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 241
The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the accused cannot have a vested right to claim preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in corruption cases.
“it is perspicuous that conducting a preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption. While preliminary inquiry is desirable in certain categories of cases including those under the PC Act, it is neither a vested right of the accused, nor a mandatory pre-requisite for registration of a criminal case.”, the Court observed.
Courts Should Not Lightly Interfere With Personal Liberty : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Cancelling Bail
Case Details: Kailash Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 242
The Supreme Court, while setting aside a High Court ruling cancelling bail of an accused under an attempt to murder charge, observed that an individual's liberty is a precious right under the Constitution, and courts should be cautious before interfering with it. Elaborating, the Court said that since there was no evidence showing that the accused's conduct after bail warranted deprivation of his liberty, the High Court had no valid reason to cancel the bail.
“Suffice to observe, liberty of an individual being a precious right under the Constitution, the Courts ought to be wary that such liberty is not lightly interfered. We are satisfied that there was no valid reason for the High Court to cancel the bail without there being any material to show, even prima facie, that conduct of the appellant post grant of bail has been such that he should be deprived of his liberty. There are also no allegations of influence being exerted or threat extended to the witnesses or of tampering the evidence. Material to demonstrate that dilatory tactics have been adopted to procrastinate the trial is also conspicuous by its absence.,” observed bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan.
'Child A Competent Witness' : Supreme Court Summarizes Law On Child Witness Testimony
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 243
The Supreme Court (February 24) overturned the acquittal of a man accused of murdering his wife, ruling that his seven-year-old daughter's testimony was credible. The Court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence and held that his failure to explain the circumstances of his wife's death, which occurred within the four walls of his house with only their daughter present, was a relevant circumstance as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Heavily relying on the Child Witness testimony, the Court observed that the testimony of a child witness cannot be dismissed outright because, under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, a child is competent to testify if they can understand the questions and provide rational answers. Moreover, the accused cannot benefit from a minor contradiction in the child's testimony and no corroboration of the Child is required when his/her testimony remains credible and consistent.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra summarized the law regarding the child witness testimony.
Also from the judgment - S.106 Evidence Act Must Be Applied With Care, Can't Be Used To Make Up Prosecution's Inability : Supreme Court Explains Principles
'Highly Excessive' : Supreme Court Quashes Bihar Legislative Council's Decision To Expel RJD MLC For Comments Against Nitish Kumar
Case Details: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 244
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Bihar Legislative Council to expel RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh for making defamatory words against Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
Although the Court observed that Singh's conduct was “abhorrent” and “unbecoming”, it held the punishment of expulsion to be “highly excessive” and “disproportionate.” The expulsion violated not only Singh's rights but also the rights of the electorate represented by him.
The Supreme Court emphasised that a punishment imposed on a Member of the Legislature for breach of privileges must be proportionate to the misconduct. The Court observed that even brief absences can impede a member's ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions.
Drawing a distinction between 'legislative decisions' and 'proceedings in the Legislature', the Supreme Court held that while 'proceedings in the Legislature' are immune from review based on allegation of 'procedural irregularities', there is no absolute bar on judicial review of 'legislative decisions'.
JJ Act Bars Public Disclosure Of Juvenile's Conviction Record; Child Won't Suffer Any Disqualification Due To Conviction : Supreme Court
Case Details: Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No. 851/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 245
The Supreme Court opined that Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which states that a child shall not suffer disqualification due to a conviction of an offence under this Act, is protective in nature. Therefore, cases where such conviction details continue to appear in public or official documents undermine the safeguard intended by the legislature.
“By expressly stating that “a child ... shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction,” the provision carves out a unique sphere of immunity for individuals whose offences are adjudicated under the juvenile justice framework. This principle is rooted in the broader humanitarian object of the JJ Act, 2015- to rehabilitate and reintegrate juveniles into society, free from the stigma of their past conflicts with law.,” observed the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
The bench also highlighted Sub-section 2 of this provision, which talks about destructing the relevant conviction records after a certain period. Thus, this shows that the legislature intended a fresh start for juveniles and that the past will not hinder juvenile's future.
S. 411 IPC | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller Accused Of Possessing Stolen Gold Bars Since He Had No Knowledge That They Were Stolen Property
Case Details: Nandkumar Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court (February 25) acquitted a jeweller who was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for receiving stolen property in the high-profile ₹6.7 crore Vijaya Bank fraud case.
The Court observed that mere possession of the stolen property by the accused would not justify a conviction under Section 411 of IPC unless it is proven that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen.
Since the prosecution was not able to establish that the gold bars seized and recovered from the possession of the Appellant/accused were linked to the fraud, the Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the Appellant-Jeweller and ordered the Respondents to return the gold bar seized from his jewellery firm.
Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Director Of Drug Manufacturing Company For Substandard Drugs Seized After His Resignation
Case Details: Yashpal Chail v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 247
The Supreme Court quashed a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (“Act”) against a former Director of a Drug Manufacturing Company, which had undergone a raid for allegedly manufacturing a substandard drug, after noting that the director resigned from the company before the raid took place.
The Court held that the director could not be held liable for the company's obligations arising after their resignation. Since the director resigned in 2009, while the raid and drug seizure occurred in 2010, the Court absolved the appellant of charges under the Act.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the argument that the appellant's name on the Elmac manufacturing license (valid 2006-2011) automatically made him liable for substandard drugs, even though he had resigned before the substandard drugs were produced.
'Land Can't Be Reserved Without Acquisition Indefinitely' : Supreme Court Declares Reservation Of Land Lapsed As Per S.127 MRTP Act
Case Details: Nirmiti Developers v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal Nos. 3238-3239 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 248
The Supreme Court observed that Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requires that the land reserved, for any purpose specified in any plan under this act, should be utilised within the prescribed timeline. Otherwise, the reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Court also observed that the timeline provided under the Act is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the authorities under the State.
“The landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a landowner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period.,” the bench of Justices J.B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said.
No Concept Of 'Deemed Sanction' Under Section 197 CrPC : Supreme Court
Case Details: Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 249
While quashing a case against the public servant due to lack of prior sanction, the Supreme Court observed that the failure of the sanctioning authority to provide sanction within the stipulated time would not make the sanction a 'deemed sanction' because such a concept doesn't exist under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
“Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction,” the bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
Tenant Cannot Dictate Landlord Should Get Another Property Vacated For Bona Fide Need : Supreme Court
Case Details: Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 250
The Supreme Court observed that the landlord or property owner is the best judge of which portion of the rented premises should be vacated to meet their specific needs, and the tenant cannot oppose eviction merely on the grounds that the landlord owns other properties.
“The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.”, the Court observed.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice N Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal of the landlord, whose suit for eviction filed out of bona fide need to establish an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court.
S.27 Evidence Act Can't Aid Prosecution If Recovery Isn't Proved To Be Based On Disclosure Of Accused : Supreme Court
Case Details: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 251
The Supreme Court while acquitting two persons convicted for the offence of murder, observed that the circumstance leading to the deceased's body discovery was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant. The observation was made in regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which talks about information received from the accused which may be proved.
If the discovery was not proved to be in furtherance of the confessional statement, then the confessional statement cannot be accepted as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
“If that be the position, not only the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant cannot be accepted as having been proved as valid pieces of evidence. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is entitled to an acquittal on this count.,” the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Employee Can't Be Denied Pension Citing 'Break In Service' If Absence Was Regularized As Extraordinary Leave : Supreme Court
Case Details: Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 252
The Supreme Court held that pensionary benefits cannot be denied to a retired government employee whose unauthorized absence from duty was treated as extraordinary leave, leading to the regularization of their service.
The Court said that if despite the employee's prolonged absence from the service, his service is regularized during the period of absence by treating his absence as extraordinary leave, then the absence cannot be considered as a 'break in service' to deny pensionary benefits.
“In our considered view, having once regularized her service during the period of absence by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be held that the said period can be treated as break in service.”, the court observed.
When Can Life Insurance Claim Be Repudiated For Not Disclosing Other Existing Policies? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Mahaveer Sharma v. Exide Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr., Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2136 of 2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 253
The Supreme Court, while deciding an insurance-related claim, observed that insurance is a contract of utmost faith and it is an insured's duty to disclose all material facts. Non-disclosure of such fact may result in repudiation of the claim; however, the materiality of a certain fact is decided on a case-to-case basis.
“An insurance is a contract uberrima fides. It is the duty of the applicant to disclose all facts which may weigh with a prudent insurer in assuming the risk proposed. These facts are considered material to the contract of insurance, and its non-disclosure may result in the repudiation of the claim. The materiality of a certain fact is to be determined on a case-to-case basis.,” observed a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Person Deprived Of Money Has Right To Be Compensated By Payment Of Interest : Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of Restitution
Case Details: Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of Nct & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 254
The Supreme Court held that a person deprived of the use of money he was entitled to has the right to be compensated for the deprivation, in the form of interest.
“Thus, when a person is deprived of the use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or compensation. Interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other.”, the court observed.
The Court explained that interest is paid as compensation to address the unjust enrichment of one person at the expense of another without legal justification, preventing the rightful owner from using their money. The purpose of paying interest as compensation is to 'restore' the affected party to the position they would have been in if the money had been returned promptly.
“Money received and retained without right, carries with it the right to interest. There being no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount/tax collected by the Revenue, the Government cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies. Obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with in the right to interest,” the Court explained, quoting from Union of India through Director of Income Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 335.
BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court
Case Details: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court on Thursday(February 27) delivered a significant ruling on the powers of arrest under the Goods and Services Tax Act and the Customs Act.
The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.
The dictum in the Arvind Kejriwal case that the arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act must be made only if there are “reasons to believe” has been applied in the context of GST and Customs arrests as well. Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 104 of the Customs Act are virtually the same, the Court noted. Both provisions deal with the power of arrest. The Court held the same for the arrest provision under the GST Act as well.
The Court also held that the circulars issued by the GST department regarding arrest must be strictly adhered to. The Court also rejected the argument that customs officers are police officers.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
MSME Act | Procurement Order 2012 Has Force Of Law, Authorities Subject To Judicial Review : Supreme Court
Case Details: Lifecare Innovations Pvt Ltd v. Union of India., Writ Petition (C) No. 1301 of 2021
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 256
The Supreme Court held that the Procurement Order 2012 issued as per the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, has the force of law and is enforceable.
The Court further held that while the MSME Act and the Procurement Order 2012 do not create an 'enforceable right' for an individual MSE, the statutory authorities and administrative bodies created thereunder are impressed with enforceable duties. They are accountable and subject to judicial review.
Power Of Attorney With Agreement To Sell Won't Create Agent's Interest In Property; Such GPA Gets Revoked On Principals' Death : Supreme Court
Case Details: M. S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. v. J. Manjula Etc
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court ruled that a General Power of Attorney (“POA”) without an interest in favor of the agent becomes revocable upon the principal's death, terminating the agency. Additionally, even if an unregistered agreement to sell was executed alongside the POA, the agent cannot claim ownership, as an agreement to sell does not transfer title or ownership unless it is followed by a registered sale deed.
The Court clarified that a Power of Attorney (POA) becomes irrevocable only if it is coupled with a proprietary interest in favor of the agent. In essence, if after the death of the principal (POA Maker), certain interest are created in favor of the agent (POA Holder), then only the POA becomes irrevocable and not otherwise.
Merely labelling a POA as “irrevocable” does not make it so, it must confer an actual proprietary interest for irrevocability to apply, the court said.
“a mere use of the word 'irrevocable' in a POA does not make the POA irrevocable. If the POA is not coupled with interest, no extraneous expression can make it irrevocable. At the same time, even if there is no expression to the effect that the POA is irrevocable but the reading of the document indicates that it is a POA coupled with interest, it would be irrevocable”, the court observed.
The Court observed that the nature of a power of attorney is determined by its subject matter and not its title. Whether a power of attorney is labelled as general or special, its nomenclature does not determine its nature.
Judgment Allowing Govt Employees To Claim Increment Earned A Day Before Retirement Applies Prospectively To Third Parties : Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj | Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 In Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 258
The Supreme Court confirmed its interim clarifications made with respect to its decision The Director (Admn and HR) KPTCL & Others vs CP Mundinamani , which held that government employees are entitled to the increment which they earned on the previous day of their retirement.
The Court clarified that the judgment in CP Mundinamani will apply to third parties from the date of the judgment, i.e, 11.04.2023. This means that pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 30.04.2023 will not be paid.
Court Judgments Always Retrospective In Nature Unless Judgment Itself Specifies Its Prospective Operation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Kaniskh Sinha v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 259
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that it will operate prospectively.
“Whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpretated by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively,” observed a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Article 226 | Mere Existence Of Disputed Questions Of Fact Won't Affect Writ Court's Jurisdiction To Grant Relief: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar & Ors. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 4526-4527 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 260
The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court does not generally determine the disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction, the mere existence of disputed factual questions does not preclude the High Court from granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.
“Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner.
In a case where the Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.,” observed the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal Of Two Women Judicial Officers In MP, Says Sensitivity Must Be Shown To Women's Difficulties
Case Details: In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service, SMW(C) No. 2/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 261
The Supreme Court set aside the termination of services of two women judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh, after finding it to be “punitive, arbitrary and illegal.”
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and NK Singh directed the reinstatement of the two officers within a period of fifteen days in accordance with their seniority they possessed. The Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government and the Madhya Pradesh High Court to declare the probation of the two officers as on the date their juniors were confirmed (13.05.2023). Monetary benefits of the period of termination shall be calculated notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of being sensitive to the gender-specific difficulties faced by women, while assessing their performance.
“While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical condition which may weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of women judicial officers,” the bench observed.
Stay On Discharge Orders Should Not Be Granted Unless Circumstances Are Exceptional : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 262
The Supreme Court held that High Courts should not ordinarily stay the discharge orders passed by the trial courts in criminal cases.
“Stay on discharge should never be granted unless circumstances are exceptional,” the Court stated.
The Court further held that even when the appellate court invokes Section 390 CrPC to arrest an accused while considering an appeal against acquittal, then also bail should be rule.
Supreme Court Refuses To Quash 2011 Gujarat Police FIR Against Ex-IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma, Grants Anticipatory Bail
Case Details: Pradeep N Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Another / SLP (CRL) 354/2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 263
The Supreme Court, while refusing to quash the FIR against former Gujarat IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma for allegedly misusing official position to pass unduly favourable orders in a land dispute, granted him anticipatory bail.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the orders of the Gujarat High Court dated 12.12.2018 and 28.2.2019 where his plea for quashing FIR, registered in 2011 at Rajkot, for offences under S. 409, 219 and 114 IPC and application for anticipatory bail in that regard were rejected.
Borrower Not 'Consumer' If Loan Was For Profit Generation, Consumer Complaint Not Maintainable Against Bank : Supreme Court
Case Details: Chief Manager Central Bank of India v. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 264
The Supreme Court held that a borrower will not come within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 if the loan was taken for a profit-generating exercise.
The Court held that the complaint filed by the borrower against the bank was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as it was a “pure business-to-business transaction for a commercial purpose.”
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the borrower cannot be said to be a 'consumer' since transaction in question—i.e., obtaining a project loan—had a close nexus with a profit-generating activity.
Courts Cannot Grant Compensation To Accused For Wrongful Confinement In Bail Applications Under S.439 CrPC : Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau v. Man Singh Verma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 265
The Supreme Court held that a Court does not have the power to grant compensation to an accused for wrongful confinement while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“It is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial,” the Court observed.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan set aside a direction passed by the Allahabad High Court asking the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to an accused for alleged wrongful confinement for about four months in a drug case.
Motor Accident Claims | Contributory Negligence Can't Be Presumed Without Direct Or Corroborative Evidence : Supreme Court
Case Details: Prabhavathi and Ors. v. Managing Director Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266
The Supreme Court has reiterated that contributory negligence cannot be presumed in motor vehicle accidents without direct or corroborative evidence.
The Court applied the ratio laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 166, where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles.
“...on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed,” the Court said while holding the High Court's view that there was 25% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the vehicle accident.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with an appeal filed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in a motor accident claims appeal.
Advocate Not Expected To Verify Genuineness Of Power Of Attorney Given By Litigant : Supreme Court
Case Details: Ismailbhai Hatubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 267
The Supreme Court has observed that an advocate cannot be held criminally liable for merely failing to verify the genuineness of a power of attorney which was handed over by a litigant to file a case.
In the ordinary course, an advocate is not expected to verify the genuineness of the power of attorney, the Court observed. Discharging an advocate from a criminal case for offences relating to cheating, forgery etc., a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed :
“When a litigant claiming to be a power of attorney holder of others, approaches a member of the Bar and shows him the original power of attorney and engages him to file a case, the Advocate is not expected to get the genuineness of the power of attorney verified.”
'Judicial Verdicts Not Like Sand Dunes' : Supreme Court Deplores Practice Of Making Oral Mentions To Modify Orders/Judgments
Case Details: CS Umesh v. TV Gangaraju and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 268
The Supreme Court deplored the practice of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments in the guise of a review. The Court reminded that the hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its “stability and finality”, quoting from its judgment in Superteh Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that “judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather.”
Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court
Case Details: Rahul Verma and Ors. v. Rampat Lal Verma and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269
The Supreme Court reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm.
“An arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of any party and the arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased,” the Court stated, referring to the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 667.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7942 which held that an arbitration agreement does not stand discharged on the death of a partner and it can be enforced by the legal heirs of the deceased-partner.
'Ignores Principle Of Public-Private Partnerships' : Supreme Court Quashes HC Direction To TN Govt To Take Over Formula 4 Racing Event
Case Details: Racing Promotions Private Limited v. Dr. Harish & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 270
Emphasizing the need for judicial restraint in contractual matters between the State and private entities, particularly in financial dealings, the Supreme Court (February 20) set aside the Madras High Court's ruling that had modified key financial directives related to the Formula 4 racing event in Chennai.
Upholding the legitimacy of contractual agreements between the State and private entities for public benefit, the Court emphasized the growing significance of public-private partnerships (PPPs), acknowledging the State's limited resources, and the private sector's specialized expertise.
The Court struck down the High Court's directive requiring the private entity to reimburse ₹42 crores spent by the State on promoting the racing event and to deposit ₹15 crores in advance for future editions. Additionally, it nullified the order directing the Tamil Nadu Government to take over the event's organization. The Court upheld the contractual arrangement between the State Government and private entity that allows the private entity to conduct the Formula 4 racing in Chennai, with the State Government acting as a facilitator.
Motor Accident Compensation | Supreme Court To Reconsider Judgment Barring Claim Under S.163A MV Act After Dismissal S.166 Claim
Case Details: Valsamma Chacko & Anr v. M.A. Titto & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27621 of 2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 271
The Supreme Court (on February 13) referred its decision relating to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385, to a larger bench for reconsideration. A three-judge bench in this case held that, where no case is made out for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants cannot file their claim under Section 163A of the Act.
For context, Section 166 permits the claimant to seek compensation based on proving fault or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, Section 163A allows for no-fault liability, meaning the claimant is not required to prove any wrongful act, neglect, or default by the vehicle owner or driver.
The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran reasoned that Section 163A is a beneficial legislation and thus it is difficult to accept the decision in the Deepal Girishbhai Soni case.
S. 378(3) CrPC | For Leave To Appeal, Consider If Prima Facie Case Or Arguable Points Exist; Not Whether Acquittal Likely To Be Reversed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 272
The Supreme Court clarified that when deciding an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal, the High Court should not deny leave solely based on a prima facie assessment of whether the acquittal would be overturned. Instead, it must apply its mind and determine whether a prima facie case exists or if arguable points have been raised.
Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. requires the State to obtain leave from the High Court before appealing against an acquittal.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified the position while deciding an appeal filed by the informant against the Bombay High Court's decision to reject the State's application for leave to appeal against the accused's/respondent no. 1's acquittal by the trial court. The High Court denied leave to appeal against an acquittal, noting that the view taken by the trial court to acquit an accused was 'possible view', not liable to be interfered with.
No Presumption Of Corruption Due To Misuse Of Authority If There's No Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 273
The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of misuse of authority will not give rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) unless there is proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Section 20 of the PC Act presumes that a public servant who accepts an undue advantage did so as a motive or reward.
The Court ruled that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would not arise unless the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is established. The Court said that mere allegation of misuse of authority, for instance, not following the tender process in the present case, does not automatically amount to corruption unless there is evidence of illegal gratification.
“Unless proof is offered to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption would not arise. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot arise on the mere allegation of a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as rightly pointed out by the appellant.”, the Court observed.
Orders
'Positive Example Of Out-of-Court Settlement': Supreme Court Lauds Parties After Trademark Dispute Was Amicably Settled
Case Details: Murlidhar Gyanchandani and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another., Criminal Appeal No. 5549 of 2024
In a trademark dispute that was resolved through out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court expressed its hope for the constructive negotiation of such disputes without requiring several rounds of litigation.
“We hope that this serves as a positive example of an out-of-court settlement, demonstrating how disputes can often be constructively negotiated without the need for sparring litigation before a court of law.,” the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
Whether Teachers Appointed Prior To July 29, 2011 Must Pass TET To Be Considered For Promotion? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: Director of School Education Chennai 6 v. B. Annie Packiarani Bai, SLP(C) No. 2691/2022 (And Connected Cases)
The Supreme Court is set to consider the question as to whether teachers appointed prior to July 29, 2011, having years of teaching experience, are required to qualify the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) to be considered for promotion. The Court is also to examine whether, in case of minority institutions, there can be insistence by school education departments on teachers' passing of the TET.
For context, on July 29, 2011, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) made TET mandatory under amendments to the notification laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed an order stipulating the issues.
Supreme Court Seeks Forensic Report On Audio Tapes Alleging Manipur CM Biren Singh's Role In Ethnic Violence
Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024
The Supreme Court sought the production of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory on the examination of certain audio tapes which allegedly recorded the statements to Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh suggesting his involvement in the State's ethnic violence. The report has to be submitted in a sealed cover.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed the order in a writ petition filed by the Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust seeking an independent investigation into the audio tapes. The matter will be posted next in the week commencing on March 24, 2025.
Mahakumbh Mela Stampede | Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against UP Govt, Allows Petitioner To Approach High Court
Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 86/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking action against Uttar Pradesh state officials for the stampede which occurred at the Maha Kumbh Mela last week.
The Court asked the petitioner, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, to approach the Allahabad High Court. “It is an unfortunate incident, something which is of concern. but go to the High Court. There is already a judicial commission constituted” CJI told Tiwari, who said that stampede incidents were becoming regular.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Recall TN Governor RN Ravi For Walking Out Of Assembly
Case Details: CR Jaya Sukin v. Secretary To The President and Others | W.P.(C) No. 98/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to recall Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for walking out of the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly without delivering the customary address.
Petitioner in Person CR Jaya Sukin said “ He (governor) has violated the entire constitution....he has insulted the people of the entire Tamil Nadu.” He sought directions to the President of India to recall the Governor. He cited Article 156, as per which a Governor holds the post at the pleasure of the President.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar while dismissing the petition, noted that the ambit of prayers was outside the scope of the Court.
The CJI observed: “We cannot grant that prayer, we are also bound by the Constitution ...petition is dismissed”
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Provisions Of Dowry Prohibition Act
Case Details: Rupshi Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 68/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging validity of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as “adverse to men”.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order. Dismissing the PIL, the bench asked the petitioner to approach the Parliament.
Supreme Court Declines Gurmeet Ram Rahim's Plea To Stay Trial In 2015 Sacrilege Cases
Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024
Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim has moved the Supreme Court seeking vacation of stay imposed on the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which stopped the trial in the 2015 sacrilege cases.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter pursuant to an application filed by Ram Rahim (for vacation of stay) in Punjab government's plea challenging the High Court's stay on trial. Though a request for stay of the trial was made on his behalf, the bench declined the same.
“The prayer in the interim application cannot be granted without hearing the matter on merits. Rejoinder be filed within a period of 3 weeks from today. Post the SLP for hearing on March 18.”
Delhi Air Pollution| Supreme Court Directs CAQM To Hold Meeting With 3 States On Proposed Action Plans To Tackle Stubble Burning
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 013029 / 1985
The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to hold a meeting with the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.P on the proposed action plans for crop diversification, In-situ and Ex-situ management for crop residue and mass awareness and consultation programmes in an effort to tackle the issue of stubble burning by farmers.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.
Why Detain Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants Indefinitely Instead Of Deporting Them? Supreme Court Asks Union
Case Details: Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013
The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government about the purpose of keeping hundreds of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in detention centres in India for an indefinite period, instead of deporting them to their native country.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh has been apprehended and convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946, then they should be immediately deported to their native country after their period of sentence. The bench wondered if they should be kept for an indefinite period in detention centres/correctional homes in India.
The bench noted that there are almost 850 illegal migrants detained in correctional homes and sought to know the exact present figures.
“Vague Complaint, Complete Assumptions”: Supreme Court Affirms HC Order Quashing FIR Against BJP Leader Over Alleged Electoral Bonds Extortion
Case Details: Adarsh R. Iyer v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 1183/2025
The Supreme Court while dismissing the plea challenging the discharge of ex-BJP Karnataka State President Naleen Kumar Kateel in a case alleging extortion through electoral bonds, remarked that the complaint was 'vague' and based on 'assumptions'
The Court however clarified that the dismissal of the present plea would not bar anyone from showing material evidence which could justify the filing of the FIR/complaint.
Assault Of SC Lawyers At Gautam Budh Nagar Court: Supreme Court Warns President & Secretary Of Bar Association Over Non Appearance
Case Details: In Re: Assault On Two Members of The Supreme Court Bar Association At District Court Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar Versus, SMW(C) No. 3/2024
In the suo motu case initiated following the assault on two members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) at Gautam Budh Nagar District Court during a lawyers' strike, the Supreme Court issued fresh notices to the President and Secretary of Jan Path Diwani Evam Faujdari Bar Association, Gautam Budh Nagar.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, taking into account withdrawal of vakalatnama by the counsel representing President and Secretary of the bar association.
It asked the President and the Secretary to appear on the next date, clarifying that their failure to appear would be viewed seriously.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On RTI Activist's Plea Challenging Amendment To Election Rules Restricting Public Disclosure Of Poll Records
Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India| W.P.(C) No. 000083 / 2025
The Supreme issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India in a petition challenging the amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which seeks to restrict people's right to access election related records.
The petition has been filed by Anjali Bhardwaj who is a transparency activist and has been working on issues of transparency and accountability for several decades.
The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the petition tagged it with the similarly pending challenge by Congress Rajya Sabha MP and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh
Supreme Court Bars Union & States From Reducing Forest Land Unless Compensatory Land Provided
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd) and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1164/2023
The Supreme Court restrained the Union and the States from taking any steps that would lead to reduction in “forest land” across the country, unless provision is made by them for compensatory land.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order to the following effect: “Until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union or any of the states which would lead to reduction in the forest land, unless compensatory land is provided either by the State or the Union for the purposes of forestation.”
Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Plea To Prospectively Apply 2019 Judgment Allowing Solatium & Interest For National Highway Land Acquisitions
Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 In C.A. No. 7064/2019
The Supreme Court dismissed plea(s) filed by NHAI seeking a clarification that the Court's 2019 ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh on grant of solatium and interest to landowners shall apply prospectively.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rendered the decision, stating,
“Granting such clarification would nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide...The ultimate outcome of Tarsem Singh is related to granting solatium and interest to aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015...It does not in any way direct the reopening of cases that have already attained finality. On the contrary, modifying or clarifying Tarsem Singh would land itself to violating the doctrine of immutability undermining the finality of the decision...what the applicant seeks to achieve indirectly is to evade responsibility and further delay resolution of a settled issue, where the directions given are unequivocal...What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
'Can't Delay Deportation Saying Address Not Known': Supreme Court Asks Assam Govt To Initiate Process To Deport 63 Persons Declared As Foreigners
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Assam for not taking steps to deport persons declared as foreigners and for keeping them in detention centres indefinitely.
The Court expressed surprise at the explanation given by the State of Assam that the steps were not taken as the foreign addresses of the detained persons were not known. The Court directed the State to immediately initiate the process of deporting 63 declared foreigners, whose nationality was known, and file a status report in two weeks.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious displeasure with the State's affidavit for not divulging the relevant information and termed it “per se defective.”
The State was directed to file an affidavit updating the status within a period of two weeks. The bench further directed that it was the responsibility of the State to ensure that all facilities in the detention centre are properly maintained. The State was directed to constitute a committee of officers who will visit the transit camps/detention centres once fortnight and ensure that proper facilities are available there.
The Court also directed the Union Government to give details regarding the persons deported so far. The Union was also asked to inform how it proposed to deal with persons whose nationality was not known.
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Petitions Challenging 2019 UAPA Amendments, Says High Courts Must Decide First
Case Details: Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1076/2019 and Connected Matters
The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act and directed the High Courts to hear writ petitions challenging the amendments.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of pleas relating to the challenge to the UAPA Amendment Act 2019 and NIA provisions.
In relation to the pleas challenging the UAPA Amendment 2019, clarified that “All High Courts to proceed with the Writ Petitions challenging the provisions of the UAPA”
The Court directed that appeals filed by accused or victims in matters under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 would not be dismissed on reason that delay beyond a period of 90 days cannot be condoned.
The bench dictated the order as follows: “The appeals preferred by the accused or the victims will not be dismissed on the ground that the delay cannot be condoned beyond 90 days”
NEET-PG 2024 | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Fresh AIQ Round 3 Counselling Due To Alleged Anomalies In MP State Round 2
Case Details: Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 103/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking direction to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct AIQ (All India Quota) Round III of NEET-PG 2024 counselling afresh on the ground that there were instances of seat blocking following delay in completion of 2nd round of state counselling in Madhya Pradesh.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order upon hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioners), who argued that due to instances of seat blocking and delay in completion of MP State Round II, there were lesser seats in AIQ Round III and candidates got lower subject category seats. The senior counsel prayed for a chance to the petitioners to participate in stray counselling.
Supreme Court Allows Karnataka HC To Proceed With Direct Recruitment Of 158 Civil Judges Ignoring State Govt's Circular
Case Details: Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary and Ors | C.A. No. 1867/2006
While hearing the issue of pending vacancies in the district judiciary, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka High Court to proceed with the selection process of recruiting 158 civil judges irrespective of the state government's circular holding up direct recruitments to the judiciary.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was informed that the Karnataka Government in its circular dated November 15, 2024, stopped the direct recruitment process by making amendments to reservations under Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment ) (Amendment) Rules 2024.
The CJI, in his order, directed that the High Court continue with the selection process as an interim measure only.
“Issue notice, and as an interim measure we direct that the process of direct recruitment of 158 civil judges in Karnataka shall continue notwithstanding the circular dated 15.11.24 issued by the State Government. This order is subject to the final outcome/decision on the application”
'We Admire Courage Of Madhya Pradesh State In Filing Petitions With 300/400 Days' Delay': Supreme Court Summons MP Law Secretary
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Gokulchand & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 61179/2024
Taking a stern view on excessive delay in filing an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh Government, the Supreme Court directed the Law Secretary of the State to be present to explain who was the authority behind deciding to file the case.
The bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan was hearing a plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the MP High Court which dismissed its second appeal due to a gross delay of 656 days in filing.
Most States Have Amended Rules To Include Mother's Name In Child's Documents: Supreme Court Disposes Of 2014 PIL
Case Details: Madhav Kant Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 576/2014
The Supreme Court disposed of the public interest litigation filed in 2014 seeking identification of children by the names of their mothers in all official documents and affidavits.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has since passed away and majority of the states/Union Territories have undertaken policy measures to ensure that a mother's name is inserted in all official/public records of her child.
“The petitioner raised an issue of paramount importance and as per the reply-affidavits filed by most of the states, they have accepted the concern raised by the petitioner and taken policy decision/amended rules etc. to ensure that the name of the mother of a child is inserted in all the official/public records. That being so, nothing survives in this writ petition” dictated Justice Kant.
Supreme Court Rejects Karnataka Govt's Argument That Sexual Act On Dead Body Amounts To 'Rape' Offence
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi| SLP(Crl) No. 005403 - / 2024
The Supreme Court observed that since the Penal Laws do not recognise Necrophilia as an offence, it cannot interfere with the part acquittal order of the High Court in a case where the accused had sex with the body of the deceased after murdering her.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court which acquitted the accused from charges of rape for having sexual intercourse with the murdered body but upheld the conviction under the offence of murder.
Strong Measures Needed To Infuse Purity & Independence In Sports Bodies: Supreme Court In Kabbadi Federation Dispute
Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
While hearing a matter relating to the Kabbadi Federation , the Supreme Court said that some strong measures are required to be taken to “infuse purity, fairness, autonomy and independence” in the election of Sports Federations in India and to “oust such persons who have monopolized the sports federation for their vested interest.”
The bench took note of the offensive contents of a letter written by the “so-called” President of the Asian Kabbadi Federation to the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India(AKFI), and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the possibility of a CBI investigation, potentially involving INTERPOL, and pursuing diplomatic channels to resolve disputes surrounding the federation's recognition.
“Taking into consideration the oral submissions made on behalf of the intervenors and the learned Administrator, and also having taken cognizance of the offensive language used by the purported and so-called President of the Asian Federation, it seems to us that some strong measures are required to be taken in order to infuse purity, fairness, autonomy and independence in the election process, particularly to oust such persons who have monopolized the sports federation for their vested interest.”, the court remarked.
Supreme Court Relieves Datla Sreenivasa Varma As In-charge Of SIT Formed To Probe Manipur Extra-Judicial Killings
Case Details: Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000129 / 2012
The Supreme Court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s plea to release Datla Sreenivasa Varma from the position as the head of the SIT formed to probe into Manipur's extra-judicial killings.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the issue of alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur by armed forces.
The bench allowed the application filed by the CBI to relieve Datla Sreenivasa Varma, Joint Director and HOZ, NE Zone as the in-charge of the SIT constituted to investigate the alleged illegal killings.
Registry Has No Authority To Delete A Case From Cause List Unless Specifically Ordered By Concerned bench Or Chief Justice: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Registry has no authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed, unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.
“The fact that service of notice of making alternate arrangements was not served is no ground to delete a case which is notified on the cause list. Once the case is notified on the cause list, unless there is a specific order to that effect, either of the bench concerned or Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Registry has no authority to delete a case which is already listed”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held this after it noted that the Registry had deleted a case on the ground that the notice of alternate arrangement was not served on the litigant whose Advocate-on-Record had been designated as a Senior Advocate.
Supreme Court Directs Making Chandigarh UT A Party In Ex-Punjab CM Assassination Case Convict's Plea For Transfer From Tihar Jail
Case Details: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 403/2024
The Supreme Court said that the Union Territory of Chandigarh must be made a party in the petition filed by Jagtar Singh Hawara, convicted in the 1995 assassination of former Chief Minister of Punjab Beant Singh and 16 others, for transfer from Tihar jail to any jail in Punjab.
The Court noted the necessity of the Chandigarh Administration because Hawara was tried and lodged in Budhail Jail in Chandigarh, from where he was subsequently shifted to Delhi. The petitioner has been asked to implead the UT administration as a party.
The Court has directed the NCT of Delhi and Union to also file a reply along with the Chandigarh Administration within 4 weeks.
'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant
Case Details: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors.
The Supreme Court reprimanded the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for alleging that the Court recorded in its order a statement by the lawyer, even though the lawyer never made such a statement.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made against the Court. “We are shocked to read allegations made in the applications. The allegation made is that, though we have recorded statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, in fact, no such statement was made before us. We are shocked to know that such allegations are being made against the court, and that also in absence of the lawyers who were present on that day.”
The bench strongly condemned the allegations, stating, “This is an allegation directly made against the court, that we have recorded a statement which was not made across the bar. We deprecate such tendency on the part of the applicants. Moreover, the advocates who appeared on that day have not shown their face today.”
The Court dictated that it was imposing a cost ot Rs 5 lakhs on the Corporation for making such allegations.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Police Protection To Discovery Channel Officials From Threats Received For Documentary On Asaram Bapu
Case Details: Shashank Walia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 70/2025
The Supreme Court granted interim police protection to the officials and property of Discovery Communications India over the threats faced by the broadcasting channel in relation to the documentary on self-styled godman Asaram Baapu.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the top officials of Discovery India which stated that after the release of the show titled 'Cult of Fear- Asaram Bapu', several hate comments against Discovery and persons associated with it were received on the social media accounts of the Broadcasters.
Supreme Court Entrusts Charge Of Kabbadi Federation To Elected Body; Asks Centre To Ensure Participation Of Indian Team In Asian Championship
Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors | WP(C) 93/2015
The Supreme Court asked the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure that Indian Kabbadi players are allowed to participate in the Asian Kabbadi Championship to be held in Iran from February 20 to 25.
The Court also requested Justice(Retired) SP Garg, who was appointed by the Delhi High Court as the administrator of the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India (AKFI), to hand over the charge of the Federation to the governing body said to have been elected in the election held on December 24, 2023, to administer the AKFI. The Court said that it was passing this order considering the urgency of the participation of Indian players in the Senior Asian Kabbadi Championship(Women) 2025 scheduled to be held in Iran from February 20 to February 25.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order in a writ petition filed by women players Priyanka and Pooja seeking permission to participate in the Asian Kabbadi Championship. Their participation came under a cloud as the AKFI was suspended by the International Kabbadi Federation on the ground that it was not being managed by an elected body.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Police Investigation On Statements Before Justice Hema Committee Regarding Women's Exploitation In Malayalam Cinema
Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024,
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the directions of the Kerala High Court to register FIRs based on the depositions given by witnesses/victims before the Justice Hema Committee regarding the sexual exploitation of women in the Malayalam cinema field.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that once an information regarding the commission of cognizable offence is received, the police officer is bound to proceed under the law and that there cannot be a direction to injunct the police's powers to investigate.
The bench pronounced the order disposing of the Special Leave Petitions filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actors challenging the direction issued by the Kerala High Court in October last year.
'Nobody Gets Better Treatment Because Of Senior Gown': Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Delhi HC's Senior Designations
Case Details: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Ors. v. Full Court of The Honble Judges of The High Court of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 60205-2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to confer senior designations on 70 advocates.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.
'Go To HC': Supreme Court Disposes Of Contempt Petition Filed Against UP Authorities Over Demolition Of Property At Sambhal
Case Details: Mohammed Ghayoor v. Rajender Pensiya and Ors., Diary No. 2651 of 2025
Granting liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against Uttar Pradesh authorities for alleged violation of order dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,
“We find that the issue can be best addressed by the jurisdictional High Court. We therefore dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.”
NEET-PG 2024 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Fresh AIQ Round 3 Counselling
Case Details: Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 103/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct AIQ (All India Quota) Round III of NEET-PG 2024 counselling afresh on the ground that there were instances of seat blocking following delay in completion of 2nd round of state counselling in Madhya Pradesh.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Not inclined to pass directions with regard to petitioners' prayer for participation in stray round of counselling, Justice Gavai said, “Very complicated...If we entertain the petition of these 3 (petitioners), we will have another 30...some casualties are there...this was a problem only in Madhya Pradesh, it was not a problem in other states”.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Provisions Allowing Outstation Students To Vote In Their Place Of Study
Case Details: Arnab Kumar Mullick v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000215 - / 2024
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the electoral manual provisions allowing students studying out of their constituency to transfer their names from the electoral rolls to the place of their education.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter.
Justice Kumar explained that for students studying outside their resident constituency, the only option they have is either they travel to back to the enrolled constituency for voting or have their electoral enrollment shifted to the constituency one is studying within.
Supreme Court Appoints Retd P&H HC Judge As Independent Observer To Physically Supervise Chandigarh Mayoral Elections On Jan 30
Case Details:
'No Response By State On Enquiry Into Complaint Of Defence Witness Intimidation': Supreme Court Stays Trial Against MP Congress MLA
Case Details: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court stayed the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defence witnesses are being pressurised.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a petition filed by Bharti seeking to transfer the trial to another State. During the hearing, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated.
The Court also orally remarked that an advocate representing the Government must be an officer of the Court and should not act like a mouthpiece of the State.
Cycle-Tracks Not Priority When State Struggling To Provide Basic Needs Like Housing, Hospitals: Supreme Court Refuses PIL
Case Details: Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking direction to have separate cycling tracks in all cities, questioning the feasibility of such a direction when the governments were finding it difficult to even provide basic amenities like shelter and hospitals to the people.
'How Can Convicted Politicians Come Back?': Supreme Court Seeks Union, ECI Stand On Lifetime Bar For MPs/MLAs After Conviction
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
In a PIL challenging election of convicted persons as MPs/MLAs, the Supreme Court observed that criminalization of politics is a very major issue and sought the responses of Union of India and Election Commission on the challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was dealing with the public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking life-long disqualification of MPs/MLAs who have been convicted of criminal offences. Vide this PIL, the petitioner has also challenged provisions of the Representation of People Act, which bar convicted politicians from contesting elections only for 6 years after serving the jail term.
'How Could Governor Send Re-passed Bills To President?': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Tamil Nadu Govt Plea
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against its Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 12 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020. Once the Bills were re-enacted in a special session by the Government, the Governor sent some of the re-passed laws to the President for reconsideration.
Various constitutional issues concerning the interpretation of Article 200 and factual questions have emerged from the four days of the hearing. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has formulated eight questions for the parties.
Supreme Court Summons Chief Secretaries Of AP, Delhi & JK To Explain Failure To Act Against Misleading Medical Ads
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
The Supreme Court asked Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir to appear on March 7 virtually and explain why they haven't complied with directions passed by the Court earlier to act against misleading medical advertisements.
Hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association, the Court also asked them to explain why they have not filed their affidavits in terms of the Court's earlier orders regarding enforcement of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Deploy Security Guards At All ATMs As Banks Say It's Impractical
Case Details: State Bank of India and Others v. Reserve Bank of India and Others | SLP(C) No. 35933-35934/2016
Accepting the argument raised by various banks that it was not practical to deploy security guards at all ATMs round the clock, the Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court in December 2013 for the security of ATMs.
The High Court had directed, inter alia, that security guards should be placed round the clock at all ATMs and that only one customer can enter for one ATM, at a time.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the appellants, requested the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran to make the interim order passed in December 2016 absolute. He submitted that the direction to deploy security guards in all ATMs was not practical.
Should Commercial Suit Be Rejected Under O VII R 11 CPC For Not Following Pre-Institution Mediation? Supreme Court To Examine
Case Details: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited & Anr. | SLP (C) 2753/2025
The Supreme Court will examine the question whether a commercial suit should be rejected at the threshold for not following the pre-institution mediation as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
While issuing notice in a Special Leave Petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar observed :
“The question that requires consideration by this Court is whether, due to non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a suit should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or whether it should be kept in abeyance, directing the parties to first explore the possibility of settlement by instituting mediation.”
'Directions Issued Against Mob Violence Binding On All Authorities': Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL To Curb Cow Vigilantism
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
Stating that directions already issued against lynching and mob violence, the Supreme Court disposed of a PIL which raised the issue of cow vigilantism and mob attacks.
The Court stated that the directions issued in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are binding on all authorities and that it was not feasible for it to monitor compliance by all States/Union Territories by “sitting in Delhi”. It also noted that the prayers raised in the petition were “omnibus” in nature.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,
“Second prayer is with regard to providing redressal in the cases of lynching and mob violence mentioned hereinabove to the victims and their families...a strict compliance with the punitive and remedial measures mentioned in para 14 of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. Insofar as the said prayer clause is concerned, again, if there is non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Tehseen Poonawalla, an aggrieved person would have a remedy available to him in law. However, sitting here in Delhi, we can't monitor incidents taking place in different areas in different states of country. In our view, such micromanagement by this Court would not be feasible. If any other person is aggrieved with the directions, they can approach competent courts for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law.”
Decide SP Leader Md Abdullah Azam Khan's Appeal Treating Him As Juvenile On Date Of Offence: Supreme Court To Sessions Court
Case Details: Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 5216/2023
The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Sessions Court to decide the criminal appeal, filed by Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan against the trial court's order convicting him for an offence under Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty), within 6 months.
The Court added that Abdullah Azam Khan's appeal should be decided by treating him as a juvenile as on the date of the offence.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal stated that the Court would grant leave and pass directions to the District Court. It ordered: “Meanwhile, we request the District Court to make an endeavour to dispose of within 6 months.”
Supreme Court Seeks Data From High Courts On Pendency Of Commercial Disputes & Available Commercial Court Infrastructure
Case Details: Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (ICABA) v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 900/2020
In a matter pertaining to implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court called on High Courts across the country to furnish data on pendency of commercial disputes and the infrastructure available for dealing with the same.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a petition seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Earlier, when the matter was taken up in 2023, the Court had asked Union of India to apprise about the status of constitution of commercial courts in different states/UTs.
Don't Delete Data On EVMs Pending Verifications, Reduce Cost For Seeking Verification: Supreme Court Tells ECI
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. | MA 40/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 434/2023
The Supreme Court sought the reply of the Election Commission to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking directions to the ECI to allow verification of the burnt memory and Symbol Loading Units of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).
The Court also told the ECI to not erase or reload the data in the EVMs while carrying out the verification.
ADR filed the application contending that the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the ECI for verification of the EVMs was not in accordance with the April 2024 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta heard the matter.
Trial Of Engineer Rashid MP Can Continue In Special NIA Court Instead Of MP/MLA Court: Supreme Court Clarifies
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
The Supreme Court clarified that trial of Engineer Rashid MP can proceed before the Special NIA Court instead of the Special Court for MPs/MLAs.
The clarification was made in the case where directions were issued for setting up Special Courts for the trials of Members of Parliament/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MPs/MLAs).
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan was hearing an application filed by the Delhi High Court through the Registrar General seeking clarification that “the High Court may authorise that trial of MPs/MLAs (including Ex-MPs/MLAs) who are facing trial of the scheduled offences as prescribed in the Special Acts like NIA Act by the Special Court designated/constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act instead of by the Special Courts created for the trial of MPs/MLAs and thereby enabling the High Court to issue necessary notification/office order in this regard.”
The bench, in its order, noted that one of the accused, namely Engineer Rashid, who was facing trial before the NIA Special Court, had now become an elected Member of Parliament. As the trial began even before his election in 2024, 21 witnesses have been examined by the Special Court under the Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Court allowed the clarification as sought above.
1-Year LL.M. | Supreme Court Asks BCI To Hold Stakeholder Meeting On Concerns About 1-Year Teaching Requirement To Accept 1-Yr LL.M
Case Details: Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2021
In the pleas challenging Bar Council of India's decision (later rescinded) to scrap one-year LL.M. programme and derecognize foreign LL.M. degrees, the Supreme Court suggested that a meeting of all stakeholders be convened to work towards resolution of issues - including the requirement of 1 year teaching experience for 1-year LL.M. degree holders in order for their LL.M. to be recognized.
The Court further indicated that if the issues are not resolved as such, it will hear the matter on merits.
A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and noted that the only surviving grievance is with regard to Clause 20(3) of the notification dated 02.07.2021 issued by BCI, which insists on 1 year teaching experience for holders of 1 year LL.M. degree - whether obtained from Indian University or foreign University - for the LL.M. degree to be recognized.
Supreme Court Imposes Cost On States For Failure To Report Compliance With Order Directing Implementation Of POSH Act
Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023
The Supreme Court imposed Rs.5,000 as a cost on the States for failing to comply with the December 3, 2024 order in which comprehensive directions were passed for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The order particularly emphasised “decentralising” the POSH Act to take on board the private sectors, which the Union also pointed out is a “red flag” because they have been “very hesitant” in implementing the POSH Act, especially in constituting Internal Complaints Committee for hearing complaints pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh passed further orders in addition to the orders passed by this Court on May 12, 2023, and October 22, after it had observed that there were “serious lapses“ in the implementation of the POSH Act. It has stated that a copy of the Court's order shall be taken by the respective State counsel to the State Secretaries for compliance and a status report has to be filed in response to the same.
Desilting Of Yamuna Riverbed: Supreme Court Summons UP Jal Nigam Official To Explain Non-Compliance With Directions
Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 13381/1984
Dealing with the MC Mehta case pertaining to environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court summoned Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam's topmost official - its Managing Director - to answer non-compliance with the Court's directions of November, 2024 relating inter-alia to taking of interim measures.
The concerned Managing Director (an IAS officer) has been asked to appear on the next date through VC.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating:
“We find that there is no compliance made with order dated 25.11.2024. Very serious issue of [removal of] silt, sludge, garbage upto 5-6 metres in Yamuna has been raised. After considering report of IIT, Roorkee, directions were issued on 25.11.2024...On the next date, Managing Director, UP Jal Nigam will remain present through VC. One week before the next date, he will file his personal affidavit reporting compliance with order dated 25.11.2024.”
Supreme Court Rejects Indrani Mukerjea's Plea To Travel Abroad, Expedites Sheena Bora Murder Case Trial
Case Details: Indrani Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 17027/2024
The Supreme Court today(February 12) refused the plea of Indrani Mukerjea, accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, to travel abroad while the trial is pending. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal also directed the expedition of the trial and complete it within one year.
Mukerjea has been accused of murdering her daughter Sheena Bora. She was granted bail in 2022 by the Supreme Court on grounds that she has been in custody for 6.5 years and the trial is likely to be concluded soon.
PMLA Accused Can't Be Kept In Custody If Order Taking Cognizance Of ED Complaint Has Been Quashed: Supreme Court
Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after noting that the order taking cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been quashed.
The Court questioned the ED for continuing the custody of the accused, who has been in custody since August 2024, after the order taking cognizance was quashed on February 7, 2025.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case concerning Arun Kumar Tripathi, an Indian Telecommunications Service Officer, who was arrested by the ED on August 8, 2024 in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
The Court observed that provisions of PMLA cannot be misused to keep individuals in jail.
Shelters For Urban Homeless: Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Centre's New Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission
Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003
In the PIL seeking adequate shelters for homeless persons, the Supreme Court asked Union of India to verify statistics relied upon by the petitioners as well as to seek relevant information from all states/Union Territories so that the issue can be considered on a pan-India basis.
Insofar as it was informed that the Union is in process of finalizing a New Mission on Urban Poverty Alleviation, the Court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to place on record the various aspects covered by the said scheme and to take instructions as to by what time the scheme is likely to be implemented.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter. Justice BR Gavai deprecated the distribution of freebies ahead of elections and remarked that it would be better if the homeless are sought to be integrated into mainstream society so that they can contribute to the nation.
Judicial Officers' Pension | 'Centre's Unified Pension Scheme Will Solve Issues', AG Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Uoi and Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015
In the All India Judges Association case, pertaining to pension-related issues of judicial officers, Attorney General R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that the Centre has notified a Unified Pension Scheme, which would take care of the concerns of all employees - including judicial officers.
Taking into account the same, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih posted the matter after 12 weeks, to see how the said scheme works out.
“We find it appropriate that the matter [be] adjourned for some time so as to experience how the Unified Pension Scheme works and take a call on the issues involved in the present petitions thereafter”, dictated Justice Gavai.
'Mystery': Supreme Court Puzzled Over Anonymous Filings In Chhattisgarh NAN Scam Case; ED, Accused & State Deny Filing
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
While hearing the ED's plea for cancellation of bail to the accused in the Chhattisgarh NAN Scam, the Supreme Court expressed concern over certain 'confidential notes' filed anonymously in a sealed cover before the bench.
The Court directed the Registrar(Judicial) to inspect, along with the Advocates from both sides.
The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuuyan was hearing a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020 to some accused, including Anil Tuteja former IAS officer.
Supreme Court Seeks Maharashtra Govt's Response On Whether Sahara's Versova Plot Is Within Mangrove Forest
Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 001820 - 001822 / 2017
While hearing the SEBI v. Sahara matter, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Department of Forest and Urban Development and the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra to give clarity on whether developing Sahara's Vervosa Plot to pay back its creditors would end up intruding into reserved mangrove forest area.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices MM Sundaresh and Bela Trivedi was hearing a batch of contempt petitions against Sahara Group of Companies who were in violation of the Court's 2012 order.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To SP Leader Mohammad Azam Khan And His Son In Stolen Machinery Case
Case Details: Mohammad Azam Khan and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 17240/2024
The Supreme Court granted bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Azam Khan, a former member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Rampur and his son Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan, former member of the Legislative Assembly from Suar constituency in the stolen machinery case.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by them challenging the January 29 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to grant them bail.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal granted bail taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, and the period of incarceration undergone. The order states: “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case which include the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants, and that the chargesheet has already been filed, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellants.”
2020 Bengaluru Riots: Supreme Court Denies Bail To Accused, Directs Karnataka Govt To Establish Additional NIA Court For UAPA Offences
Case Details: Shabbar Khan v. National Investigative Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 17214/2024
The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Shabbar Khan, charge-sheeted in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 case related to the riots which happened in Bengaluru on August 11, 2020. The riots reportedly happened over a Facebook post where derogatory comments were allegedly made about Prophet Muhammad.
A Day After Reserving Orders, Supreme Court Re-lists Bangladeshi Immigrants' Deportation Case On Union's Request
Case Details: Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013
A day after reserving judgment in a case raising the issue of indefinite detention of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country, the Supreme Court re-notified the matter to enable the Union of India to file an additional affidavit containing inputs from the Ministry of External Affairs.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order upon a mentioning of the case by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who informed that some inputs from the Ministry of External Affairs need to be placed before the Court.
BNSS Allows Supply Of Chargesheet & Case Documents To Victims Free Of Cost: Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea
Case Details: Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India, SLP(C) No.7446/2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking directions to authorities for free supply of chargesheets to complainants/victims and issuance of notice to them at pre-trial stage.
It observed that while the first issue stood resolved in terms of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), on the second issue, the Court, under writ jurisdiction, could not direct the legislature to enact law in a particular manner.
“In a writ jurisdiction, neither the High Court nor this Court can direct Legislature to enact a law in a particular manner.”
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order after Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave informed that Section 230 of BNSS (unlike Section 207 CrPC) provides for free supply of copy of chargesheet to the victims/complainants and as such, the matter has become infructuous. As per Section 207 CrPC, only the accued had the right to get the copies free of cost.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Jayalalithaa's Niece For Return Of Properties Confiscated In Disproportionate Assets Case
Case Details: J Deepa v. Superintendent of Police | SLP(Crl) No. 2208/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by J Deepa, the niece of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking the return of the properties confiscated in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's order refusing to release Jayalalithaa's assets to her heirs.
Supreme Court Summons Haryana DGP Over Illegal Arrest Violating 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines
Case Details: Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 20330/2023
The Supreme Court directed the personal appearance of the Director General of Police, Haryana, since no action was reported to have been taken against police officials who arrested a person in violation of the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court passed several guidelines to curb unnecessary and casual arrest, and directed that if the offences are punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment, then arrest should not be the norm. It was directed that police should satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It should also furnish reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest.
Can NCPCR File Complaint Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act Against Unlawful Conversion Of Kids? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open
Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jerald Alameda and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6321/2023
The Supreme Court expressed reservations about the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) cannot file a complaint under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, in the absence of a complaint of unlawful religious conversion by a person (or their parents/siblings) who has been illegally converted.
However, the Court did not pronounce anything finally on the issue and kept it open. It directed that the High Court's observations shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case.
Supreme Court Directs States To Implement Amicus Suggestions On E-Prisons Project
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail | SMW (CRL.) NO. 4/2021
The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to take steps for the implementation of the suggestions submitted by amicus curiae Devansh A. Mohta on the e-prison project and file a report within 1 month in this regard.
Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest: Supreme Court
Case Details: Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 2783/2025
The Supreme Court upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was observed that a request to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the public interest, cannot be declined.
By an order dated November 11, 2024, passed in a writ petition, the High Court allowed Respondent's plea seeking disclosure of the marks obtained by other candidates, including of himself in the recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk in District Court, Pune, under the RTI Act.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said:
“We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”
Chandni Chowk Illegal Constructions | 'Will Direct CBI Enquiry' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Delhi Municipal Corporation
Case Details: Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 35312-2024
The Supreme Court expressed an inclination to direct a Central Bureau of Investigation enquiry into alleged illegal and unauthorized commercial construction in Chandni Chowk, Delhi as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's failure to deal with the same.
Pulling up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi over its inaction, Justice Surya Kant said, “We are inclined to [direct] CBI to investigate...in Chandni Chowk, builders construct like that and you shut your eyes!?”
“This matter requires not only the inspection of the site by an expert team, including the measurements, the affairs of the Municipal Corporation would also have to be gone into in the matter of permitting illegal and unauthorized commercial constructions apparently for extraneous considerations. There shall be a show cause as to why a deeper probe [not] be ordered...” dictated Justice Kant.
Besides the aforementioned direction to MCD, the bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked the petitioners to serve the unserved respondents, as the Court cannot pass an order without hearing them. It also called on the petitioners to suggest names of some independent persons (architects, engineers, etc.) for constitution of a Committee that can go and inspect the site prior to the Court ordering CBI enquiry.
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots | Ensure Petitions Against Acquittals Are Filed Within 6 Weeks: Supreme Court Tells Delhi Police
Case Details: S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India | WP (Crl) 9/2016
The Delhi Police (February 17) informed the Supreme Court that it would be filing Special Leave Petitions in six cases where the accused in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots were acquitted.
The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an Article 32 petition filed by S Gurlad Singh Kahlon in 2016. In this petition, the Court formed a committee led by Justice SN Dhingra.
The bench passed the following order :
“SLP will be filed by the State of Delhi in the following 6 cases...considering the fact that this bench is seized of WP 9/2016, the SLP shall be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice of India, seeking administrative directions for tagging those SLPs along with the present writ petition. We direct the State of Delhi to ensure that SLP in the aforesaid cases are filed in the maximum period of 6 weeks from today.”
Rohingya Children Can Move HC If Denied School Admission Despite Eligibility: Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea
Case Details: Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 1895/2025
The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking admission for Rohingya refugee children in Delhi schools, observing that the appropriate course of action would be for the children to first approach the concerned government schools (to which they claim eligibility). If they are then denied admission (despite being eligible), the children would be at liberty to approach the Delhi High Court, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating, “the appropriate recourse for these children would be to apply to the Government Schools for which they are claiming themselves eligible and in the event of denial of admission, if they are entitled to such admission, the concerned children can approach the Delhi High Court...With liberty aforementioned, the special leave petition is disposed of.”
Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of 10 Year Experience Condition For Women's Reservation In Delhi District Bar Associations
Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024
The Supreme Court clarified that half of the 30% Executive Committee member posts reserved by it for women lawyers in Delhi District Bar Associations shall be filled by those having over 10 years of practice. This eligibility criteria would not be applicable for the other half of the reserved EC posts, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order.
'Dirty Mind, Perverted' : Supreme Court Berates YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia, Stays His Arrest In FIRs For Obscenity
Case Details: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025
The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber Ranveer Allahabadia (popularly known as Beer Biceps) in the FIRs registered at Mumbai, Guwahati and Jaipur for the offence of obscenity over his remarks during an episode of the “India's Got Latent” show.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order, while issuing notice to the respondents (Union of India, State of Maharashtra and State of Assam) on the writ petition filed by Allahabadia against the multiple FIRs. It was directed that no further FIR shall be registered against Allahabadia based on the India's Got Latent episode.
The Court expressed its intention to do something to regulate obscene content on YouTube and other social media, and asked the Union Government about its views.
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel In CBI Case Related To Agusta Westland Chopper Scam
Case Details: Christian James Michel v. Central Bureau of Investigation | SLP(Crl) No. 17016/2024
The Supreme Court (February 18) granted bail to British Arms Consultant Christian James Michel in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the AgustaWestland chopper scam case.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by Michel against the September 25, 2024 order of the Delhi High Court denying him bail.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted bail with a condition that he should renew his passport and subsequently surrender it.
Supreme Court Refuses To Review Order Affirming Doctors' Liability Under Consumer Protection Act
Case Details: Medico Legal Society of India v. Bar of Indian Lawyers & Ors., Diary No. 57132/2024 In C.A. No. 2646/2009
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed against its order which refused to reconsider the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha) where it was held that doctors and medical professionals come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019).
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan passed the order in the following terms:
“Having perused the Review Petition and the connected papers with meticulous care, we do not find any justifiable reason to entertain the review petition. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed”.
Supreme Court Allows Petitioners To Approach P&H HC With Their Objections To HC Order For Car Parking Space In Green Belt
Case Details: Trilochan Singh Anand and Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and Ors | Diary No. 8978-2025
The Supreme Court allowed a senior architect and a Municipal Councillor of Chandigarh administration to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court to raise their objections to the order passed by the High Court on February 7 to create a four-wheeler parking space for the High Court.
The petitioners contended that the directions will involve the cutting down of trees and would lead to environmental damage, affecting the heritage status of the HC building.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Sanjay Karol refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed by them and allowed them to approach the High Court instead.
Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost On West Bengal Govt For Filing Delayed & Baseless Petition Against Employee's Retiral Dues
Case Details: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Md. Kamaluddin Ansari & Ors.
The Supreme Court imposed ₹10 Lakh cost on the State of West Bengal for filing a delayed and baseless petition against an employee's rightful retiral dues, which had remained unpaid for 18 years. The cost was directed to be paid to the retired employee (respondent in the case).
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case involving a retired employee who had not received his retiral dues since his retirement in 2007. The Appellant-State of West Bengal had filed a petition challenging the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and directed the state to release his long-pending retiral dues.
Andhra Pradesh Order Barring Non-Hindu Vendors From Temple Shop Auctions Cannot Be Enforced Due To Stay On HC Ruling: Supreme Court
Case Details: T.M.D. Rafi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court clarified that the Andhra Pradesh Government Order (GO) dated November 9, 2015, which bars non-Hindu vendors from participating in temple shop lease auctions, cannot be acted upon in view of the apex court's stay on the High Court decision upholding the GO.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made this clarification while disposing of an application challenging a tender process that implemented the impugned rule.
“The impugned judgement has been stayed by this court by interim order dated 27th January 2020. The impugned judgement affirms G.O.MS. No. 426, Revenue Endowments dated 9th November 2015. In view of the stay granted to the operation of the impugned judgement we clarify that the GO dated 9th November 2015 shall not be acted upon”, the Court held.
'Very Disturbing' : Supreme Court Suo Motu Stays Lokpal's Decision To Entertain Complaint Against High Court Judge
Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 27/01/2025 Passed By Lokpal of India and Ancilliary Issues, SMW(C) No. 2/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government in a suo motu case initiated against a Lokpal decision which held that it can exercise jurisdiction over High Court Judges.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka expressed disapproval of the Lokpal's reasoning and stayed the operation of the order. The Court also issued notice to the Registrar General of the Lokpal and the complainant. The bench injuncted the complainant from disclosing the name of the High Court judge and the contents of the complaint.
'We Expect HC To Act More Responsibly In Future' : Supreme Court Criticizes Allahabad HC For Passing Orders When SC Was Seized Of Issue
Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Pratyush Rawat & Ors., Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 30405/2024
The Supreme Court criticised the Allahabad High Court for passing an interim order regarding the supply of food to lactating mothers and young children in Anganwadi centres, despite the Supreme Court being seized of the issue.
Commenting that the High Court's order was an “attempt to overreach” the Supreme Court, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan recorded their strong displeasure, and advised the High Court to act more responsibly in future.
“We would, thus, expect the High Court to act more responsibly in future,” the Supreme Court stated in its order.
Mullaperiyar Dam : Supreme Court Asks Supervisory Committee To Look Into Tamil Nadu's Complaints Against Kerala
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala . and Anr., Orgnl.Suit No. 3/2006
In the original suit pending between States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala over the Mullaperiyar Dam, the Supreme Court directed the Supervisory Committee constituted by the Union to convene a meeting of all concerned officers of the states to try and resolve the interim issues raised by Tamil Nadu.
In the event of inability to resolve some issues, the Committee shall submit a report to the Court to enable it to address them, the order added.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the directions, while placing before CJI Sanjiv Khanna all the cases pending before the Court related to Mullaperiyar dam safety (for consolidation). These included - the present original suit, Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu and Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India.
Supreme Court Rejects Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition, Says 'Would've Entertained If Sanction Plan Was Shown'
Case Details: Vikas Mamanchand Goyal v. Shekhar Singh and Anr., Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 60/2025 In W.P.(C) No. 295/2022
Asking a petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court, the Supreme Court refused to entertain another contempt petition alleging violation of its judgment dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating, “we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner, if aggrieved, can very well approach the jurisdictional High Court”.
Matheran E-Rickshaw Allotment : Supreme Court Gives Time To Maharashtra Govt For Fresh Proposal, Rejects State's Objection To District Judge's Report
Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
The Supreme Court granted 2 weeks' time to the State of Maharashtra to furnish a proposal for revisiting the process of allotment of 20 e-rickshaw licenses to original hand-cart pullers in the pedestrian hill-town of Matheran.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with the issues pertaining to a pilot e-rickshaw project in the hill-town. It passed the order after Maharashtra's counsel submitted that it would be appropriate for the state to undertake the allotment process afresh.
“Two weeks' time is granted to the state government to come out with a proposal for revisiting the process of allotment of e-rickshaws”, dictated Justice Gavai.
Notably, Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat (for handcart-pullers) submitted during the hearing that the report submitted by Principal District Judge, Raigad over the allotment of licenses was “completely flawed”, not based on correct appreciation of material and might be required to be re-done by the judge or the state. Rejecting the submission, the bench said,
“We are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr Kamat inasmuch as the report is prepared by a responsible, senior judicial officer.”
Supreme Court Issues Notice To NCRB On Collection Of Caste-Data Of Prisoners
Case Details: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India| SMW(C) No. 10/2024
The Supreme Court issued notice to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to implead it as a party in the ongoing suo moto proceedings to monitor the direction of compliance of the October 4, 2024, Sukanya Shantha judgment.
It was submitted by Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar that in the judgment, the Court passed specific direction (para XX, 231, no. (iv) of judgment) for deleting the “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts' prisoners' registers inside the prisons shall also stand deleted.
The amicus then filed an application in terms of this direction, stating that the direction to delete caste columns should not preclude the NCRB from collecting statistics on caste inside the prisons. On November 7, 2024, as pointed out by Dr. Muralidhar, the Court clarified that the NCRB can continue doing this exercise.
Considering this request and the need for the NCRB to file a compliance report in this regard, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued notice to it.
'Essentially A Conviction Order' : Supreme Court Judge Raises Concerns About Delhi HC's Long Orders In Anticipatory Bail Applications
Case Details: Aadhar Khera v. State of Government of Nct of Delhi, SLP (Crl) No. 2591/2025
While dealing with a bail matter, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of Delhi High Court orders disposing of anticipatory bail pleas running into 30-40 pages. The same are practically “conviction orders” giving the Trial Court reasons to convict, the judge said.
“What's happening in Delhi HC is something disgusting. High Court writing 30-40 pages while disposing of anticipatory bail is hinting the trial court that here is reason for you to convict. Essentially, it's a conviction order.”
A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with the bail plea of a practicing surgeon in a case registered under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
Supreme Court Quashes Culpable Homicide Charge Against Doctor For Patient's Death After Phone Instruction
Case Details: Dr. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
The Supreme Court quashed the charge of culpable homicide (Section 304, Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code) against a doctor who gave telephonic instruction to a nurse to administer an injection, which led to a patient's death due to an adverse reaction.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta but directed the trial court to proceed with the case under Section 304A IPC(death by negligence).
Supreme Court Directs Union To File Affidavits On Establishment And Functioning Of Central Mental Health Authority
Case Details: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1496/2018
The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to file a detailed affidavit indicating the establishment and functioning of the Central Mental Health Authority, State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Board under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The order was passed in a writ petition filed under Article 32, seeking certain directions with respect to the persons requiring mental healthcare. Since January 3, 2019, the Supreme Court has been passing directions in this writ petition.
'Only Parliament Can Change SC List' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Add Are-Katika Community In Scheduled Castes Category
Case Details: Telangana State Are-Katika (Khatik) Sangh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 141/2025
Saying that only the Parliament has the power to do so, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking inclusion of the Are-Katika (Khatik) community in the Scheduled Castes (SC) category all across India.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The bench told the petitioner that the Courts do not have the power to make additions or alterations to the Scheduled Caste list.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NewsClick's Writ Petition Against Tax Demands, Gives One Week Interim Protection To Approach HC
Case Details: Ppk Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-1) | W.P.(C) No. 158/2025
The Supreme Court granted a week's interim protection to PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, the company running the news portal NewsClick, in relation to tax recovery demands. The Court while dismissing the Article 32 petition file by the company, granted it liberty to approach the High Court.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by news portal NewsClick against the tax recovery demands over 'unexplained cash credits'.
Supreme Court Asks CBI To Probe How Man Travelled To USA Despite Depositing Passport With Court
Case Details: Rajyashree Chhokar v. Manish Chhokar | Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 533-534/2022 In Crl.A. No. 1607-1608/2019
The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate how a man, facing contempt proceedings, managed to escape to the USA despite his Indian passport being deposited with the Court.
The issue arose out of a child custody battle between a husband and a wife, and contempt proceedings were initiated against the man after he failed to bring the child from the USA.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manmohan directed the CBI to register an FIR.
Supreme Court Seeks Reports From High Courts On Pendency Of Criminal Appeals
Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to submit detailed reports on the pendency of criminal appeals, seeking comprehensive data on cases pending before Single Judges and Division Benches, including a bifurcation based on the bail status of the accused.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this order in a suo moto petition on policy strategy for grant of bail to convicts whose appeals are pending for a long time. In this case, the court is dealing with the issue of remission, bail, and delay in disposal of criminal appeals in High Courts.
Why 4.5 Years To Frame Rules? Supreme Court Questions Delay In Implementing 2020 Code On Rights Of Gig Workers
Case Details: The Indian Federation of App – Based Transport Workers, (IFAT) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1068/2021
The Supreme Court directed the Union to file an affidavit indicating the timeline in which the rules/scheme relevant to give effect to provisions of Chapter IX of the Code on Social Security, 2020, will be framed and given effect to.
Chapter IX of the 2020 Code is specifically dedicated to rights and social security for unorganised workers, gig workers and platform workers. The Code received the assent of the President three years back in 2020. However, the relevant rules are yet to be framed.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed the order on February 18 in a writ petition filed by the 'Indian Federation of App-based Transport Workers' pertaining to the rights of gig workers.
Supreme Court Imposes Costs On States & UTs For Failing To File Affidavit On Effective Implementation of Domestic Violence Act
Case Details: We The Women of India v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021
The Supreme Court on February 18 imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on States of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Odisha, Telangana, West Bengal, Assam and the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep for failing to file a status report on the effective implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).
The Court has now given 2 weeks of additional time with a payment to be deposited by each State the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Supreme Court To Recover Costs From Defence Colony RWA For Illegal Occupation Of Historic Monument For 60 Years
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. | Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 12213/2019
The Supreme Court directed the Department of Archaeology, Delhi to constitute a Committee within a week to initiate the process of restoration of Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance, which was under the illegal occupation of the Defence Colony Residents Welfare Association for 60 years.
The Court also indicated its intention to recover the cost of illegal occupation from the DCRWA.
Supreme Court Stays NCLAT Order Allowing NBCC To Take Over Stalled Housing Projects Of Supertech
Case Details: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority v. Nbcc (India) Limited and Ors.| C.A. No. 2240/2025
The Supreme Court stayed the NCLAT order allowing National Building Constructions Corporation (India) Limited to take over pending projects of real-estate giant Supertech Limited. The Court also directed stakeholders to submit alternative proposals for the completion of projects.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge to the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which approved NBCC (India) Ltd.'s proposal to complete 16 incomplete projects of Supertech Limited.
'How A City Can Become Smart Without Protecting Water Bodies/Wetlands?' : Supreme Court Summons Rajasthan Chief Secretary
Case Details: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashok Malik & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure with the State of Rajasthan's failure to comply with its earlier order regarding the restoration of wetlands in Ajmer City as part of the Union's Smart City Development Mission and warned of potential contempt proceedings if the orders remain unfulfilled.
“In view of non-compliance with the order dated 1st December, 2023, before we consider of initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we direct the Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan to appear before the Court through video conferencing on Monday 17th March, 2025.”, the court observed.
The direction issued under the impugned order dated Dec. 1, 2023 was for restoration of wetlands, and the Court also directed the authorities to report compliance. However, instead of showing compliance with the impugned order, the authorities reported defiance of the order, attracted the Court's criticism.
“We wonder how a city can become smart without protecting the water bodies/wetlands in the city and how cities will become smarter by making encroachments on the water bodies/wetlands.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said after noting defiance of the Court's order.
Plea Challenging AIBE Fees : Supreme Court Asks Petitioner To First File Representation Before Bar Council Of India
Case Details: Sanyam Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr | W.P.(C) No. 28/2025
The Supreme Court (February 24) heard a petition filed by Advocate, appearing as petitioner-in-person, challenging the fees and other incidental charges of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). As per the petitioner, the Bar Council of India (BCI) charges Rs.3,500 for the AIBE which in violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in Gaurav Kumar v. UOI (2024).
In Gaurav Kumar's judgment, a three-judge bench headed by former CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories as stated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
A bench of Justices Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan after briefly hearing the petitioner, passed an order giving liberty to the petitioner to first make a representation before the BCI. If he does not get a response from the BCI without a reasonable time, he can approach the Court.
'It's A Free Market' : Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Regulation Of Internet Prices
Case Details: Rajat v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 000136 / 2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking regulation of internet prices. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek alternative statutory remedies.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL filed by petitioner-in-person, Rajat.
At the outset the CJI pointed out that consumers have multiple options for availing internet services, he explained: “It's a free market, you get LAN, you get wired internet, there is other internet, BSNL and MTNL is also giving you internet.”
Supreme Court Clubs Multiple FIRs Against YouTuber Savukku Shankar Over Online Interview
Case Details: A. Shankar @Savukku Shankar v. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 000340 / 2024
The Supreme Court (February 24) allowed the clubbing of FIRs registered against YouTuber Savukku Shankar over his online interview. The Court also cautioned Shankar to abide by the previous directions of not making statements against the court proceedings.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the 16 FIRs filed against YouTuber Savukku Shankar over an online interview.
Machinery Needed For Citizens To File Complaints Against Misleading Medical Ads : Supreme Court
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022
During the hearing of Indian Medical Association's case pertaining to misleading medical ads, the Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the need for a mechanism thereunder to enable citizens to file a complaint.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and asked Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (Amicus Curiae) to place before it a note on the implementation of the Act by the next date.
“Under that Act (Drugs and Magic Remedies[Objectionable Advertisements] Act), machinery has to be established first. This is one of the Act of most vital importance. Place your note on record...we will pass comprehensive directions specifically...we will direct that entire machinery must be setup...prosecution must be [made]...some grievance redressal mechanism has to be there...if some citizen wants to complain, then how will he complain? We will direct the creation of some dedicated phone lines or something so that people can file a complaint...that is one area which should have been dealt with earlier...it's very important”, Justice Oka orally said to Farasat
'Segregation Of Waste At Source Vital': Supreme Court Seeks Affidavits From NCR States On Compliance With Solid Waste Management Rules
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India, WP (C) 13029/1985
Dealing with the issue of solid waste management in the National Capital Region, the Supreme Court called on states in the NCR to file comprehensive affidavits dealing with compliance made by all urban local bodies therein with the provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, further directing the Central Pollution Control Board to file a report on the impact of waste-to-energy projects on the environment and public health.
'Can This Court Comment Upon Affairs Of Another Country?:' Supreme Court Refuses PIL On Hindus In Bangladesh
Case Details: Rajesh Dhanda v. Union of India Ministry of External Affairs and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 153/2025
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking the protection of Hindus in Bangladesh from violence targeted at minority communities.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL filed by Rajesh Dhanda, the Chairman of Bhagwan Jagannath Rath Yatra Mahotsav Committee, Ludhiana, who is also the Vice Chairman of the ISKCON Mandir Steering Board.
On the advice of the bench, Sr Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Petitioner withdrew the PIL.
GST Act | Can Time Limit To Adjudicate Show Cause Notice Be Extended By Notification Under S.168A? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025
The Supreme Court is to decide whether the time limit for adjudicating show cause notice and passing an order can be extended by the issuance of notifications under Section 168-A of the GST Act. This provision empowers the Government to issue notification for extending the time limit prescribed under the Act which cannot be complied with due to force majeure.
“The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.,” remarked the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To YSRCP Leaders In Cases Over Attack Of TDP Office & Naidu's Residence
Case Details: Devineni Avinash v. State of Andhra Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 12659-12662/2024 & Jogi Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh SLP(Crl) No. 12567/2024
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) Vijayawada East coordinator Devineni Avinash after the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his anticipatory bail for allegedly ransacking the NTR Bhavan, the central office of the ruling Telugu Desam Party, at Mangalagiri during the YSRCP regime in October 2021.
Avinash has been on interim protection since September last year. The petitioner is accused under the offences 147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506, 324 read with 149 and Sections 326, 307, 450, 380 read with 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran also granted anticipatory bail to former minister and MLA Jogi Ramesh in connection with the allegedly vandalising Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's Undavalli residence along with other YSRCP members in 2021. He was also on interim protection.
Supreme Court Urges Union To Negotiate With Pharma Companies To Procure Medicines For Rare Diseases At Low Cost
Case Details: Union of India v. Seba P.A. | SLP(C) No. 004684 - / 2025
The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Kerala High Court which directed the Union to procure medicines worth 18 Lakh for treatment of the rare disease- Spinal Muscular Atrophy as a one-time measure. The Court also asked the Union to explore possible recourse to subsidize the drugs.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the order of the division bench of the Kerala High Court which clarified that the order of a single bench directing the Union to procure expensive drugs for treating a patient with a rare disease - Spinal Muscular Atrophy would not amount to a binding precedent for other similarly situated patients.
Senior Designation System | Supreme Court Issues Notice To All High Courts On Issue Of Reconsideration Of 'Indira Jaising' Judgments
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Supreme Court will hear on March 19 the issue of reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which govern the process of conferring the Senior Advocate designation to advocates.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti issued notice to all High Courts and other stake holders while dealing with a case in which a two-judge bench (Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr), last week, flagged several concerns about the procedure laid down by the two judgments in Indira Jaising cases.
Supreme Court Stays Coercive Steps In Age Fabrication Case Against Badminton Player Lakshya Sen
Case Details: Chirag Sen and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. | Diary No. 9824-2025
The Supreme Court issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Indian badminton player Lakshya Sen, challenging the Karnataka High Court's order rejecting his plea to quash an investigation into the allegation of fabricating birth certificates to participate in the underage badminton tournament.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice and stayed coercive steps against them. The matter will now be heard on April 16.
Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction That UP Govt Officials Must Go To Only Govt Hospitals For Treatment
Case Details: Arvind Kumar Bhati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. SLP(C) No. 2972/2019
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Allahabad High Court that government officials must avail services from Government Hospitals in Uttar Pradesh. The High Court passed the direction in 2018 while issuing a slew of directives to improve the condition of hospitals in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar orally remarked that the directions have interfered with policy decisions and meddled with the choice of treatment a patient wishes to have.
'Why You Suddenly Denotified Lands? This Has To Be Investigated' : Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Corruption Case Against HD Kumaraswamy
Case Details: HD Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6740/2020
The Supreme Court on February 25 dismissed a petition filed in 2020 by JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) seeking to quash a corruption case over the denotification of two plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), during his tenure as Karnataka Chief Minister between June 2006 and October 2007, allegedly for pecuniary gains.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's 2019 judgment which refused to quash the proceedings.
Whether 'Prakash Singh' Judgment On DGPs Applies To Delhi Police Commissioner Appointment? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open
Case Details: Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors., SLP(C) No. 019466/2021
The Supreme Court disposed of a challenge raised to the appointment of ex-Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana, while leaving open the legal question as to whether the 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India shall apply to the appointment of Delhi Police Commissioners.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,
“The only legal issue that survives for consideration is whether the principles enumerated by this Court in Prakash Singh (I), Prakash Singh (II) and Prakash Singh (III) shall be applicable in the matter of appointment of Commissioner of Police Delhi also. While the case of the petitioner seems to be that those principles will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi...the case of Union of India is that the cited decision of Prakash Singh will not apply in the matter of deployment/posting/appointment of the officers belonging to AGMUT cadre.
Keeping in view the subsequent events mentioned above (retirement of Asthana during pendency of proceedings), the special leave petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, the question of law is kept open to be gone into in an appropriate case.”
Deaths Due To Manual Scavenging Expose Claims : Supreme Court Seeks Explanation From Delhi, Kolkata & Hyderabad Authorities
Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction over the affidavits filed by authorities in Kolkata, Delhi and Hyderabad for failing to explain how and when manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning would be stopped in their cities.
Particularly, the Court has noted that Delhi Jal Board, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board have not given any explanation as to how deaths due to manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning have occurred when the authorities claimed that the practice has stopped in their respective cities.
The Court has now sought the presence of authorities from Bengaluru(which did not file an affidavit), Kolkata, Delhi and Hyderabad.
Can HCs Declare Suits To Be Barred While Exercising Jurisdiction Under Article 227? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21466/2024
The Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of whether High Courts under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can declare a suit filed in trial court as barred, akin to the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Mishra was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order which has set aside a suit for title declaration and permanent injunction while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Stays Centre's Notification Exempting Certain Construction Projects From Environmental Clearance
Case Details: Vanashakti v. Union of India
The Supreme Court stayed the central government's notification exempting certain building and construction projects from mandatory prior environmental clearance.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice returnable on March 28, 2025 in a PIL filed by NGO Vanashakti challenging the notification.
The court stated in its order, “In the meanwhile, there will be stay of operation and implementation of the impugned Notification dated 29th January, 2025 (Annexure P-24) as well as Office Memorandum dated 30th January, 2025 (Annexure P-25).”
Supreme Court Directs All States To Address Concerns About ART Drugs For People Living With HIV/AIDS
Case Details: Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court has directed all States to respond to concerns relating to periodic stockouts, transparency in tendering and procurement, and drug quality and certification processes of the of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) drugs for People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV).
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the States to file affidavits addressing six issues detailed by the petitioners in a PIL filed by the Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS regarding systemic failures in the procurement system.
“we direct all the respondents/States to file their affidavits in response to the affidavit dated 5th September, 2024 filed by the petitioners and in particular six points specified in the letter dated 23rd August, 2024 annexed to the said affidavit. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that in particular, all the States will have to deal with clause 'c' of the letter dated 23rd August, 2024 very specifically. Finally we grant time of one month to all the respondents/States to file their affidavits in terms of the above directions”, the Court stated.
BJP-Led Delhi Govt Withdraws Plea Filed By AAP-Govt In Supreme Court Against Direction To Sign MoU With Centre On PM-ABHIM
Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
After coming to power in the national capital, the Bhartiya Janata Party-led Delhi government withdrew from Supreme Court a case filed by erstwhile Aam Aadmi Party-led government against Delhi High Court's direction to the previous government to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Centre on implementation of PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) scheme.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra permitted the withdrawal of the matter.
Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Over New Delhi Railway Station Stampede
Case Details: Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 175/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed in relation to the stampede which occurred in the New Delhi Railway Station on February 15, leading to several deaths.
The petitioner, Anand Legal Trust, claimed that not all deaths were accounted for and compensation remained to be paid to many families. A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice PK Mishra refused to entertain the matter, asking the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Supreme Court Dismisses TNPCB's Plea Against Isha Foundation, Bars Coercive Steps Against Yoga & Meditation Centre Constructions
Case Details: Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Isha Foundation, Diary No. 57906/2024
While dismissing a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps should be taken with respect to the construction of Sadhguru's Isha Yoga and Meditation Centre at Coimbatore.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order, which quashed the show cause notice issued to Sadhguru's Isha Foundation for carrying out construction work at Velliangiri hills, Coimbatore between 2006 and 2014 without obtaining environmental clearance.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh approved the High Court's view and dismissed the TNPCB's challenge.
Supreme Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma In NAN Scam Case
Case Details: Satish Chandra Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 2600/2025
The Supreme Court granted pre-arrest bail to former Advocate General of Chhattisgarh Satish Chandra Verma in connection with the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while dealing with his Special Leave Petition challenging Chhattisgarh High Court's order dated February 13, denying anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court Adjourns Farmers Protest Matter In View Of Ongoing Talks Between Protesters & Union Govt
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 930-933/2024
The Supreme Court was informed that the “discussions” between the protesting farmers and the Union Government are currently going on.
Advocate General of Punjab, Gurminder Singh, informed a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh that two meetings, on February 14 and 22, have taken place so far. Another meeting is scheduled to be held on March 19. Apart from the delegation from the Union Government, a court-appointed High Powered Committee is also engaged in talks with the protesting farmers.
“Learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioner – State and learned Advocate General, Punjab jointly state that negotiation/talks are going on between the Union Government and the farmers. Two Ministers of the State Government are also stated to be participating. Keeping these developments in view, post these matters on 28.03.2025”, the Court recorded.
Supreme Court Grants Bail In UAPA Case Noting That It Was Applied To Defeat SC Order Of Interim Protection, Condemns Chhattisgarh Police
Case Details: Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 17921/2024
The Supreme Court deprecated the conduct of Chhattisgarh police in applying the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against an accused soon after he was granted interim protection from arrest in another case.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its strong displeasure with the police action.
Supreme Court Bars Further Constructions Or Additions To Ancient Religious Shrines In Delhi's Mehrauli
Case Details: Zameer Ahmed Jumlana v. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) & Ors. | Diary No. 6711 of 2024
In the plea seeking protection of ancient religious structures in Delhi's Mehrauli, the Supreme Court directed the ASI to submit a detailed report on the original designs and subsequent alterations made to the structures The Court also clarified that there shall be no construction or additions to the present structures.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge against the Delhi High Court's order, which refused to pass specific directions for protecting centuries-old religious structures inside the Mehrauli Archaeological Park in Delhi, including the 13th-century Ashiq Allah Dargah (1317 AD) and Chillagah of Baba Farid.
'Approach HC': Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Samajwadi Party Trade Wing Chief In UP Police FIRs Over 'Objectionable' Posts
Case Details: Manish Jagan Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, W.P.(Crl.) No. 99/2025
Asking him to approach the Allahabad High Court for quashing/clubbing of FIRs, the Supreme Court stayed for 2 weeks the arrest of Samajwadi Party trade wing chief Manish Jagan Agrawal who has been booked by Uttar Pradesh authorities over certain “objectionable” social media posts.
“If the petitioner is already on bail, his arrest shall remain stayed for 2 weeks to enable him to approach the High Court in the meanwhile”, the Court ordered.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order
'We Asking Rohingya Children To Approach Schools For Admission Means They Are Entitled': Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL
Case Details: Rohingya Human Rights Initiative (ROHRINGYA) and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 57/2025
The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL seeking government benefits and school admissions for Rohingya refugees, saying that it wants the children to take the initiative of approaching schools for admission.
At the same time, however, the Court preserved liberty for the children to approach the Delhi High Court in case the schools deny admission despite their entitlement.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order on the same lines as the order passed in another case seeking similar relief, where the Court had observed that the appropriate course of action would be for the Rohingya children to first approach the concerned government schools (to which they claim eligibility).
Supreme Court Dismisses SGPC's Plea Challenging Grant Of Paroles/Furloughs To Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Case Details: Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. State of Haryana and Ors., Diary No. 7483-2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee alleging that Haryana government was misusing its powers under Section 11 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 while granting parole/furlough to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the order, taking into account an observation made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the impugned order that if any application for temporary release is filed by Ram Rahim, the same shall be decided by the competent authority as per the 2022 Act without any favoritism, arbitrariness or discrimination.
NCR States Must Pay Compensation To Construction Workers Affected By GRAP Closures, Even Without Specific Court Orders: Supreme Court
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court directed that NCR states must pay compensation to construction workers affected by the closure of activities due to Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) measures in Delhi NCR.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that compensation should be paid in accordance with its earlier order dated November 24, 2021, which mandated the payment of wages to affected workers using funds collected as labour cess.
The bench emphasized that compensation must be paid even if no specific court order is issued in the future. It reiterated that whenever construction activities are halted due to GRAP measures, affected workers should receive subsistence payments as per the court's directions.
S. 14 Partnership Act | Partner's Contribution Becomes Firm's Property, Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Ownership : Supreme Court
Case Details: Sachin Jaiswal v. M/S Hotel Alka Raje & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that a contribution made by the partner to the partnership firm becomes the firm's property as per Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and neither the partner nor his legal heirs would have an exclusive right over the firm's property after the partner's death or retirement except the share in profit in proportion to the contribution made in partnership firm.
The Court added that no formal document is required to be made for transferring the property to the partnership firm, as the transfer occurs by virtue of the partner's contribution to the firm. However, the Court said that a relinquishment deed could be made to formalise the transfer of property to the partnership firm.