Nominal IndexCitationsNational Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 15016-15017 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 59State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62M/S Utkal Highways Engineers...
Nominal Index
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 15016-15017 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 59
State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61
State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62
M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 63
Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 64
Union of India v. Phani Bhusan Kundu & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 65
Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 13083/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Deepak Aggarwal v. Balwan Singh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 68
Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors. v. Narayan Nayak & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 70
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 73
Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2018 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 75
State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 76
Indian Overseas Bank v. M.A.S Subramanian & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 77
State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, SLP(Crl) No. 17026/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 78
U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 79
Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl.A No.221/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 81
Shailender Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025
Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET. (C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 530/2024
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Sukhpal Singh Khaira, SLP(Crl) No. 8985/2022
Anu Shanthi v. State of Kerala
Asha Lawrence and Anr. v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) 897/2025
Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao v. State ACB CIU Hyderabad and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 422/2025
Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 357/2025
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
Guddan@Usha v. Sanjay Chudhary, SLP(C) No. 771/2025
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 120/2012
Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl) No. 17476/2024
Rajiv Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP(Crl) No. 6066/2020
Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
MV Global Emerald v. Meck Petroleum DMCC & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20990/2024
Reports/Judgments
Motor Accident Claim | Third Party Insurance Policy Effective From Date & Time Specified In Policy Document: Supreme Court
Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 15016-15017 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58
While dismissing an insurance company's appeal against a motor accident compensation award, the Supreme Court reiterated that merely alleging fraud as regards obtaining of an insurance policy is not enough. Rather, it has to be proved by the insurance company by adducing evidence. The Court further observed that policy coverage commences from the time and date specified in the policy document.
"The Insurance Company has not been able to prove that it had not received the money/premium prior to the accident and the only stand taken was that the insurance was fraudulently obtained. The law is very clear – fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it. For, it has to be proven in accordance with law by adducing evidence etcetera, the onus of which would also lie on the person alleging fraud", stated a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) For Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage Of Litigation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The Supreme Court observed that while seeking a part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims regarding the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation,including the Appellate Stage.
“we may only say that the relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation. This was held in Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1954 SC 165. This Court referred with approval to a Division Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Waryam Singh v. Gopi Chand, (AIR 1930 Lah 34).”, the Court said.
As per Section 12(3) of the SRA, to claim part performance of the contract, the plaintiff either needs to relinquish the claims associated with the unperformed part of the contract or express readiness and willingness to perform the contract by making full payment of the agreed consideration for the contract.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Madras High Court's decision where the Appellant for the first time raised the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims for the remaining part of the contract at the Appellate stage before the High Court.
The Court ruled that part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial and non-segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part or damages nor shows readiness to perform the contract.
'Prosecutrix's Testimony Doesn't Inspire Confidence': Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal In Rape Case
Case Details: State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60
The Supreme Court observed that in rape cases if a conviction is based on the sole evidence of a single witness, even that of the victim herself, such evidence should inspire confidence in the Court. The Court agreed that while the victim's statement is given a very high value, the Court must carefully examine the same.
“Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the Courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.,” observed the Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
While dismissing the appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the principles as follows :
(i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.
(ii)Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated.
(iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
(iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
(v)The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.
PC Act | Whether Sanction Granted By Competent Authority Matter Of Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Which Invoked S.482 CrPC To Quash Trial
Case Details: State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62
The question whether sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was granted by a competent authority is a matter of evidence, observed the Supreme Court, while setting aside an order of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court also reiterated that a sanction order cannot be quashed on the ground of incompetence of the authority to grant sanction unless it is found that failure of justice has occurred due to the irregularity in granting sanction.
A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the sanction order and the trial proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitted Dues Arbitrary: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 63
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie against the same.
The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, inter-alia, placed reliance on the recent judgment of M/S Surya Constructions v. State of UP., and opined:
“Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.”
NDPS Act |'Taxi Driver Not Expected To Give Passenger Details': Supreme Court Acquits Driver Of Taxi From Which Contraband Was Seized
Case Details: Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 64
The Supreme Court acquitted a taxi driver who was implicated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), solely for failing to provide details of passengers who had carried contraband in his taxi.
The Court held that a taxi driver's inability to provide details of passengers carrying contraband could not justify implicating or convicting him under the NDPS Act, as it is unreasonable to expect drivers to know such details.
“The Courts below have convicted the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant was not able to give details of the passengers. Ordinarily, since it is not disputed that the appellant was a taxi driver and that the contraband was seized from the taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled from the scene, it cannot be said with any certainty that the appellant himself was carrying the contraband or has connived to carry the said contraband in his vehicle. It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi ask for such details from the passenger(s). Moreover, no effort was made to search out the two passengers who may reveal the truth.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the Appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision affirming the trial court's decision convicting the appellant for carrying and possessing 20 Kgs 'ganza' and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to deposit a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh).
State Govt Employee Who Worked On Deputation In Central Govt Dept Not Entitled To Pension As Per CCS Rules: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. Phani Bhusan Kundu & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 65
The Supreme Court held that the service rendered by a state government employee on a deputation basis in a central government's department would not entitle him to pension as per Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS Pension Rules”).
The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the Union of India's appeal, overturning the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing that the respondent employee's pension be calculated based on the central pay scale.
S.113B Evidence Act | Dowry Death Can't Be Presumed Without Clear Evidence Of Incessant Harassment: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 66
The Supreme Court, while acquitting an accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide, observed that to apply Section 113B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Indian Evidence Act, clear evidence for incessant harassment is essential. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stressed that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot straightaway invoke this provision.
Bail In Marital Disputes Can't Be Conditional On Payment Of Maintenance: Supreme Court
Case Details: Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 13083/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 67
In a case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court set aside a bail condition making the husband's anticipatory bail subject to payment of maintenance to the wife.
"When application for bail is filed, the Court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face Trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not therefore be warranted", observed a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti.
Supreme Court Advises Caution While Granting Ad-Interim Anticipatory Bail
Case Details: Deepak Aggarwal v. Balwan Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 68
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Courts must exercise caution when granting interim protection to the accused while deciding anticipatory bail pleas.
While holding so, the Court expressed disapproval of the High Court's decision to grant the accused the liberty to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and to order their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer.
“There is no point in asking the accused to go before the investigating officer pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court and further saying that in the event of arrest he shall be released on ad-interim bail. Such ad-interim reliefs have their own legal implications.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which allowed the accused to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and directed their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer.
Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Declaratory Relief When Plaintiff's Title Isn't Disputed By Defendant: Supreme Court
Case Details: Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors. v. Narayan Nayak & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 69
The Supreme Court observed that a suit filed only for injunction simpliciter cannot be dismissed solely because it lacks a declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), especially when the defendants do not dispute the plaintiffs' title.
“The law is well settled that if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case arising out of the Orissa High Court's decision where the High Court in a second appeal reversed the trial court's order and held that the plaintiff's injunction simpliciter suit without seeking declaratory relief under Section 34 SRA would not be maintainable.
TN Societies Registration Act | Prior District Registrar's Approval & Identical Objectives Of Societies Not Mandatory For Amalgamation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 70
The Supreme Court observed that under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 ("Act"), it is not required for the amalgamating societies to obtain prior approval from the District Registrar before passing a special resolution, nor is it necessary for the societies to have identical objectives for the amalgamation.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the SLP challenging the Madras High Court's decision, which upheld the Inspector General of Registration's order rejecting the amalgamation of societies on the grounds of lacking prior District Registrar approval and having divergent objectives.
Promotion As District Judges Under Merit-cum-Seniority Quota Can't Be Denied To Suitable Candidates Based On Merit List: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Granting relief to judicial officers of the Jharkhand Judiciary who were denied promotion despite meeting the minimum marks required in the suitability test for the merit-cum-seniority quota, the Supreme Court reiterated that the merit-cum-seniority quota is not a competitive process. Instead, it evaluates individual suitability and prioritizes promotions based on seniority once the minimum eligibility criteria are fulfilled, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma was hearing the plea where the appellants-Judicial Officers fulfilled the benchmark criteria for promotion as District Judges based on merit-cum-seniority quota of 65%. They received more than 40 marks (passing marks) in the suitability test conducted for promotion based on merit-cum-seniority.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Toilet Facilities In Court Premises For Women, Disabled & Transgender Persons
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72
The Supreme Court issued a set of directions for the construction of toilet facilities especially for women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan pronounced the judgment in a writ petition filed by Rajeeb Kalita in 2023.
"We have given enough number directions for the construction and maintenance of toilets and all other facilities for women, physically disabled persons, transgender persons, etc. The State Governments and of toilets and Union Territories shall allocate sufficient funds for the construction, maintenance and cleanliness of toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with a committee constituted by the High Courts. A status report shall be filed by all the States, UTs and High Courts within a period of four months," Justice Mahadevan said while reading out the operative part.
The Supreme Court held that toilet facilities are not merely a matter of convenience, but a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. This Article encompasses a right to a safe and hygienic environment.
The Supreme Court noted that the same would protect privacy and remove threats to ladies and transgender persons.
Order II Rule 2 CPC Bar Won't Apply When Reliefs In Second Suit Are Based On A Cause Of Action Different From First Suit: Supreme Court
Case Details: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 73
The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent suit filed on a different cause of action would not be subject to the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The Court justified the filing of a subsequent suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, following the institution of an earlier suit seeking a permanent injunction, noting that both suits were based on distinct causes of action.
Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that a plaintiff include the whole claim he is entitled to, arising from the same cause of action, in a single suit. The rule seeks to prevent the splitting of claims and multiplicity of suits based on the same cause of action. However, the Court said that the Rule would not be applicable when the subsequent suit was filed on a different cause of action than that of the cause of action for the first suit.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where an agreement to sell was entered between Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff-Buyer) and Respondent No.2 (Defendant-Seller) in respect of the immovable property. Disputes arose when Respondent No. 2 executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of the appellant in 2008.
The Supreme Court noted that while Order II Rule 2 of the CPC mandates including the entire claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit, it should not be misconstrued to require combining all different causes of action stemming from the same transaction into a single suit.
The Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff couldn't seek the required relief in the first suit, Order II Rule 2 CPC would not bar him from seeking such relief made available to him by happening of an event, by filing a subsequent suit.
Private Defence Must Be Strictly Preventive, Not Punitive Or Retributive In Nature: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2018
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
The Supreme Court observed that private defence must be strictly preventive and not punitive or retributive. The Court reiterated that causing death can only be justified when the accused is faced with a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The impending danger must be present, real or apparent., the Court said.
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan were deciding a criminal appeal against the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder. To provide a brief factual background, the appellant owned his own agricultural farm. The deceased was trying to put up a fence in some part of his land and the same was objected to by the appellant's father.
S. 141 NI Act | Resigned Director Not Liable For Cheque Issued By Company After His Resignation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 75
The Supreme Court observed that the cheque issued after the retirement of the director of the company would not trigger his liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (“NI Act”).
“Once the facts are plain and clear that when the cheques were issued by the Company, the appellant (director) had already resigned and was not a director in the Company and was not connected with the company, he cannot be held responsible for the affairs of the Company in view of the provisions as contained in Section 141 of the NI Act.”, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the appeal filed against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's refusal to quash the cheque dishonor case against the Appellant, who had resigned from the company's directorship before the issuance of cheque by the company towards a legally existing debt.
When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 76
The Supreme Court noted that the severity of injuries caused by individuals acting with common intention cannot justify reducing a harsher punishment to a lighter one.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the State of Karnataka's appeal challenging the High Court's decision to modify the conviction of Accused No. 2 from Section 326 IPC (voluntary causing grievous hurt by deadly weapons) to Section 324 IPC (voluntary causing hurt by deadly weapon), solely based on the fact that the injuries inflicted by him were less severe than those caused by the co-accused.
Agreement For Sale Doesn't Transfer Title Or Create Interest In Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Indian Overseas Bank v. M.A.S Subramanian & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 77
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that mere possession of a property under an agreement to sell does not confer ownership unless a sale deed is duly registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
“It is well settled that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property. The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.”, the court observed.
Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Govt To Bring Out Prison Manual In Accordance With 2016 Model Prison Manual
Case Details: State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, SLP(Crl) No. 17026/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 78
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the State of Jharkhand for the transfer of a prisoner from one jail in Jharkhand to another on grounds that the prisoner was involved in a gang war and there was apprehensive about the right to life.
The Court also directed the Jharkhand Government to bring a Jail Manual incorporating the provisions of the Model Prison Manual 2016.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court dated August 21, 2023, wherein the High Court had set aside the order passed by the I.G. Prison, Jharkhand, for the transfer of the Respondent from Lok Narayan Jai Prakash Narayan Central jail, Hazaribagh to Central Jail Dumka.
S. 100 CPC | High Courts Cannot Pass Interim Order In Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 79
Observing that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot proceed without framing substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which granted an interim relief in the plaintiff's favor without framing a 'substantial question of law'.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal on the question whether the High Court could pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing the substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC.
Answering negatively, the Court observed:
“Concededly, in the present case, the High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, granted the interim relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was also subsequently extended. It is also pertinent to point out that all the respondents in the second appeal have not been served and notice was unserved qua Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 therein. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have passed the interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC.”
'Abetment Of Suicide' Offence Can't Be Invoked Only To Assuage Feelings Of Family; High Time To Sensitise Police: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl.A No.221/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 80
The Supreme Court reminded investigating agencies and trial courts not to mechanically invoke the offence of abetment of suicide (Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code/Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
"Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police," the Court said.
The Court stated that the provision (S.306IPC/S.108 read with 45 BNS) cannot be invoked merely to pacify the sentiments of the family of the person who died by suicide. The interactions between the accused and the deceased must be seen from a practical point of view and hyperbolic exchanges should not be exaggerated as incitement to suicide.
The Court observed that the time has come to sensitise the investigating agencies about the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. The Court also urged the trial courts to not mechanically frame charges, adopting a "play safe" approach, when the investigation has not disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice KV Viswanathan made these important observations while discharging a bank manager of the offence of Section 306 IPC.
Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2013
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 81
The Supreme Court reiterated that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries., the Court said. Elaborating, the Court explained that victims react to trauma in different ways and it is not just to expect a uniform reaction.
"We must caution that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and neither it is important to raise a hue or cry."
“Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others.”
The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti were deciding an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (induces any minor girl to go from any place with the intent of illicit intercourse).
Orders
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Transfer Cyber-Complaints Against Alleged Victim Of Fake Stock Market Investment Scheme
Case Details: Shailender Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition which sought the transfer of multiple cyber complaints filed against a petitioner, who claimed to be a victim of cyber fraud, to one authority.
In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that three cyber complaints had been filed against him arising out of the same cause of action thereby, violating his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violating his right to a fair investigation.
As per the writ petition, the petitioner became a victim of cybercrime by falling prey to the fake stock market investment scheme run by the cybercriminals through a WhatsApp group.
CLAT 2025: Supreme Court Expresses Inclination To Transfer Petitions Against CLAT 2025 To Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Details: Consortium of National Law Universities v. Master Aditya Singh, Minor | TP (C) 000046 - 000054 / 2025
The Supreme Court expressed the inclination to transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court the petitions filed in other High Courts challenging the results of the Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) held in December 2024 for admissions to undergraduate and post-graduate law courses in various National Law Universities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the transfer petitions by the Consortium of National Law Universities seeking the consolidation of all the petitions and their transfer either to the Supreme Court or to any particular High Court.
'Won't Tolerate Union Of India Making Submissions Against Law': Supreme Court Pulls Up ED Over Argument Against PMLA
Case Details: Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court said that it would not tolerate legal submissions made on behalf of the Union of India which are contrary to the law.
The Court made this harsh remark while disapproving of the argument made by the Enforcement Directorate that the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will not apply to a woman.
"We will not tolerate conduct on the part of Union of India to make submissions contrary to statute," a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
Ultimately, the bench granted bail to the accused, considering that she has been under incarceration since November 2023 and that there was no likelihood of an early completion of trial in the near future as the recording of evidence has not commenced and there are 67 witnesses to be examined.
Farmers Protest: Supreme Court Seeks Complete Medical Report Of Farmers' Leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal Who's On Hunger Strike
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET. (C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
The Supreme Court sought complete comparative medical reports of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal (who has been on a hunger strike) including his latest vitals to take stock of his medical condition. The Chief Secretary of Punjab is directed to handover the reports to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court who shall then obtain the medical opinion from the Director (AIIMS).
This order was passed after the State of Punjab submitted that his health condition is "improving" but later clarified that his vitals are "stable" rather than improving.
Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State of Punjab, at the outset submitted that there is now a medical facility just 10 meters near the protest site and that Dallewal's parameters are "improving". An affidavit on Dallewal's latest vitals was filed before the Court.
Supreme Court Adjourns To Jan 20 RJD MLC's Plea Challenging Expulsion From Bihar Legislative Council Over Comment On Nitish Kumar
Case Details: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 530/2024
The Supreme Court adjourned to January 20 RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh's plea challenging his expulsion from Bihar Legislative Council for allegedly using defamatory words against State's Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the listing, upon hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for respondent-Bihar Legislative Council) who, after making submissions for about half an hour, prayed for some more time to address the court.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Singh) informed the Court about Bihar Legislative Council bye-elections being notified in to fill vacancy arising upon Singh's expulsion, of which results were likely to be declared today. As the matter remained part-heard, it was directed that the results of the bye-elections be withheld.
Supreme Court Warns States/UTs Of Contempt Proceedings Over Inaction On Misleading Medical Advertisements
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court warned that it will initiate contempt proceedings against states and union territories that failed to take action against misleading advertisements and medical claims that run contrary to law.
“We make it clear that every find non-compliance by any of the states and union territories we may have to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned States”, a bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) regarding misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern or “allopathic” medicine.
Supreme Court Dismisses J&K Govt's Plea Against HC Direction To Create 334 Judicial Posts Within 60 Days
Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 808/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed Jammu and Kashmir government's challenge to a High Court order which directed the UT authorities to create 334 judicial posts within 60 days.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that the main matter is pending before the High Court and the observations contained in the impugned order - an interim order - were tentative.
The order was dictated thus: "We see no reason to entertain the present SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the observations made in the interim order to at the interlocutory stage is made tentative in the event subject to the final order that would be passed in the pending proceedings.
Supreme Court Summons Principal Secretary Of Maharashtra Urban Development Dept Over Failure To Fund Sewage Treatment Projects
Case Details: Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
The Supreme Court has summoned the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Maharashtra, in connection with the State's inability to clear two sewage treatment projects in Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation area due to lack of funds.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found the State's position that the projects couldn't be cleared due to lack of funds “strange”, and emphasized that non-implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 directly contributes to air pollution.
Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea Against Congress Leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira's Bail
Case Details: Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Sukhpal Singh Khaira, SLP(Crl) No. 8985/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for the cancellation of bail to Indian National Congress MLA from Bholath constituency, Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
The SLP challenged January 27, 2022, order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which granted bail to Khaira under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in connection with a predicate and scheduled offence alleged to have been committed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in 2015.
Supreme Court Suspends Life Sentence Of Anu Shanthi In Attingal Double Murder Case
Case Details: Anu Shanthi v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court suspended the life imprisonment sentence of Anu Shanthi, who was convicted for the murder of her mother-in-law and three-year-old daughter in the 2014 Attingal double murder case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan suspended the sentence and granted bail till the pendency of her appeal against the conviction.
Supreme Court Dismisses Daughter's Plea Challenging Donation Of CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence's Body To Medical College
Case Details: Asha Lawrence and Anr. v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) 897/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the handing over of the mortal remains of late MM Lawrence, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Kerala and former Lok Sabha MP, to a medical hospital for research.
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Asha Lawrence, daughter of MM Lawrence, challenging the decision of the Kerala High Court which approved the decision of her siblings to donate the body to a medical hospital.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain BRS MLA KTR's Plea To Quash FIR In Formula-E Race "Scam"
Case Details: Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao v. State ACB CIU Hyderabad and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 422/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao (KTR) against the Telangana High Court's order refusing to quash a First Information Report against him over the alleged Formula-E race "scam".
On January 7, the High Court stated that Rao as then Urban Development Minister was controlling the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. Thus, the body's funds which were allegedly misused, were "prima facie" entrusted to him.
FIR against Rao is filed under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent), criminal conspiracy under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale stated that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Ex-IAS Officer Puja Khedkar, Issues Notice On Anticipatory Bail Plea
Case Details: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 357/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on the anticipatory bail plea of ex-IAS probationary officer Puja Khedkar, who is accused of “misrepresenting and falsifying facts" in her application for Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination, 2022. Further, it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against her in the criminal case registered pursuant to the allegations till the next date (ie February 14).
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, stating, "issue notice on respondent/state as well as respondent-UPSC...returnable on 14.02.2025. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner herein vis-a-vis FIR No...".
Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings Against IMA President Accepting His Apology For Remarks Against Court
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President, Dr. RV Asokan, over his remarks made in a media interview against the court's observations on unethical practices by IMA members.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan accepted an apology tendered by Dr. Asokan and concluded that no further action was necessary. Today, the Counsel appearing for Dr. Asokan informed the court that an apology has been published on the newspapers, on the website, and the IMA newsletter.
Limitation Period For Husband's Plea To Annul Child Marriage Starts From Age 18 Or 21? Supreme Court To Decide
Case Details: Guddan@Usha v. Sanjay Chudhary, SLP(C) No. 771/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition raising the issue as to whether the age of 'majority' – for males – when computing limitation period for filing a petition seeking annulment of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), should be 18 years or 21 years.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed the order while dealing with the petitioner-wife's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment which allowed the respondent-husband's prayer to declare the couple's marriage void even though the annulment was applied for when he was about 23 years of age.
Supreme Court To Reconstitute Bench On Coal Block Allocation Cases After Justice KV Viswanathan's Recusal
Case Details: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 120/2012
Supreme Court Judge Justice KV Viswanathan recused from the hearing the batch of pleas relating to the 2014 Coal Block Allocation cases.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the applications filed by the Enforcement Directorate in ML Sharma Coal Scam case. Justice Viswanathan revealed that he had appeared as an advocate in the related cases of Common Cause and Ors v. Union of India and Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
"There is some difficulty, my brother (Justice Viswanathan) was probably appearing as a counsel in some of the matters" " the CJI said
Supreme Court Grants Bail to JJM Scam Accused Padam Chand Jain In PMLA Case, Clarifies That Bail To Manish Sisodia Was Not Granted Under Article 142
Case Details: Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl) No. 17476/2024
While granting bail to Jal Jeevan Mission scam accused Padam Chand Jain in a money laundering case, the Supreme Court clarified that the order granting bail to former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia was not passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, which noted that Jain has already been granted bail in the predicate offenses, that evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, and that charges are yet to be framed.
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Ex-Bharti Airtel CEO Over Obscene SMSes Received By Airtel Subscriber
Case Details: Rajiv Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP(Crl) No. 6066/2020
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings pending against a former Chief Executive Officer of Bharti Airtel, who was booked over a lawyer's complaint regarding receipt of 'obscene' messages on his Airtel number.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, keeping the FIR intact for the limited purpose of investigation into the alleged offense, to find out the persons/agencies responsible for sending of the undesirable messages.
5.25 Acres Of Land For Bombay HC New Building Will Be Handed Over By End Of January: Maharashtra Govt To Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of the Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands for the High Court, SMW (C) No. 5/2024
In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court that an area of 5.25 acres, which was to be handed over by December 31, 2024 would be handed over by the end of January, 2025.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran which, taking into account Maharashtra government's submission, posted it to April, 2025, while appreciating the proactive role played by the state to ensure that the construction of the building starts at the earliest and is completed in a time-bound manner.
Supreme Court Rejects Ex-PFI Head Abubacker's Plea For Bail On Medical Grounds, Declines Request To Allow House Arrest
Case Details: Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of E Abubacker, the former Chairman of the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), for bail on medical grounds.
Abubacker, who is presently in judicial custody, was arrested under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 22B 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was arrested in September 2022 by the agency during a massive crackdown on the banned organisation in 2022 wherein the Central Government banned PFI and associated entities for a period of five years under relevant provisions of UAPA.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Requiring Delhi Govt To Sign MoU With Centre On Implementation Of PM-ABHIM Scheme
Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court order which directed Delhi government to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Centre by January 5 for implementation of PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) scheme in the national capital.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, seeking the Centre's response on the Delhi government's plea challenging the High Court order.
Arbitration Is 'Arbitrator-Centric', Making The Right Choice Of Arbitrator Can Ease Problems For Parties: CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Case Details: Roads and Building Department v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Limited | SLP(C) No. 001622 - 001623 / 2025
The Supreme Court expressed the importance for arbitrating parties to choose their arbitrator wisely as the correct choice may ease several complexities that the parties may face in their dispute.
The CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna during the hearing of an arbitration matter opined,
"Arbitration is always Arbitrator centric. Normally if you make the right choice of arbitrator...we normally underestimate the question of choice of arbitrator, if you introspect you will get a lot of answers"
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the Department's challenge to an order of the Gujarat High Court which had appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The bench ultimately dismissed the challenge.
Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Extends Complete Firecracker Ban In NCR Districts Of Uttar Pradesh And Haryana Until Further Orders
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court extended the firecracker ban in districts of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana that fall in the National Capital Region till further orders.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing the MC Mehta case regarding air pollution in Delhi and NCR.
“Till further orders are passed the ban imposed by the state of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to NCR parts of the states which was effective till today is extended. The compliance by the states will be considered on 24th of March 2025”, the Court ordered.
Supreme Court Asks 3 High Courts If Commercial Divisions Dealing With Admiralty Law Are Constituted
Case Details: MV Global Emerald v. Meck Petroleum DMCC & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20990/2024
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Registrar Generals of the High Courts of Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa on the status of setting up Commercial Divisions dealing with admiralty cases.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a commercial suit relating to admiralty and maritime law, when a circular dated 24.02.2022 issued by the High Court of Karnataka was noted by the bench.
As per the Circular, a commercial division consisting of a Single Judge has been constituted, each for the Principal Bench at Bengaluru and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.
Other Developments
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Include Rajasthani Language As Medium Of Instruction In Rajasthan Schools
Case Details: Padam Mehta and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors | SLP (C) No. 1090/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition seeking to include Rajasthani as a language to impart education to children in schools. The petitioners also sought directions to include Rajasthani Language in the examination syllabus of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the State of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary of the Education Department and the Coordinator of REET returnable within four weeks.
Malankara-Jacobite Church Dispute: Supreme Court Asks Kerala Govt To Not Publicise Data On Population & Assets Of Both Factions
Case Details: V Venu and Ors. v. St. Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
In the dispute between Malankara Orthodox and Jacobite Churches, the Supreme Court asked the State of Kerala to not publish or circulate the data regarding the population, assets and churches belonging to both the factions.
In December 2024, the Court had asked the State to furnish the data regarding the population( preferably sub-region/gram panchayat-wise) of both Orthodox and Jacobite denominations; the list of churches under the complete administrative control of both the sections; the list of churches where the management is under dispute and their current status of administrative control.
Today, after the Malankara side raised apprehensions that the publication of the date might lead to problems within the communities, the bench asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for the State of Kerala) to not circulate or publish the date.
At the outset, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Sigh said that the Courts have to tread very cautiously in religious affairs.
Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Union & ECI On Jairam Ramesh's Plea Against Election Rules Amendment On Public Disclosure Of Poll Records
Case Details: Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 18/2025
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Union in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rajya Sabha MP and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenging the recent amendment to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 on the ground that it prohibits the public disclosure of the CCTV footage of polling and other relevant records.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar agreed to issue a notice in the matter and sought a response from the Union of India and the Election Commission of India.
Supreme Court Questions Feasibility Of Directing Establishment Of Separate Cycle Tracks All Over India
Case Details: Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India
The Supreme Court expressed scepticism over the practicality of directing the authorities to establish separate cycle tracks across India.
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a PIL filed by one Davinder Singh Nagi seeking separate cycle tracks all over the country. The petitioner has made the central as well as all state governments parties to the petition.
During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked that the plea for separate cycle tracks across India was “very ambitious” and raised concerns about prioritization of government resources. He asked, “Whether the money in the state exchequer should be devoted to creating housing for the poor, health facilities, for poor educational facilities, for poor or for this?”
'Will Pull You Up': Supreme Court Asks GST Department To Rectify Issues Over Fake Invoices, Asks How Genuine Purchasers Are Liable
The Supreme Court flagged a recurring problem in GST matters whereby genuine purchasers who paid Goods and Services Tax (GST) face issues because their suppliers raised fictitious bills to evade crediting the GST to the department.
The Court orally wondered how could the purchaser be held liable for the incorrect GST registration of the suppliers when they have genuinely made purchases and paid the money, including the GST amount.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanijv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an interlocutory application filed by the GST department.
Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On PIL To Implement CNAP To Allow Mobile Phone Users Know Identity Of Callers
Case Details: Gowrishankar S v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 664/2024
The Supreme Court sought a response from Union in a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to Telecom network operators to implement CNAP (Calling Name Presentation Service).
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the PIL considering the prevalence of the problem of cyber fraud.
West Bengal SSC Recruitment | HC Qaushed Appointments On Casual Enquiry, Without Forensic Reports: Appointees Tell Supreme Court
Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024 and connected matters
The Supreme Court heard the arguments of the petitioners in the West Bengal Teachers SSC Recruitment Scam.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the Calcutta High Court's order setting aside the appointments by the WB School Selection Commission to over 24,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools.
There are 5 main categories of stakeholders which the Court identified: (1) West Bengal Government; (2) WBSSC; (3)Original Petitioners - who were not selected (representing classes 9-10, 11-12, groups C and D); (4) persons whose appointments are cancelled by the High Court ; (5) Central Bureau of Investigation. The jobs had come under the scanner due to the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Judicial Officers As Judges Of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts
The Supreme Court Collegium has passed two separate resolutions recommending the elevation of four judicial officers as Judges of the High Court of Telangana and two judicial officers as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Supreme Court Lists Godhra Carnage Appeals For Final Hearing On February 13
Case Details: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto @Jamburo v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal 517/2018
The Supreme Court stated that it is not going to further adjourn the criminal appeals pending in the 2002 Godhra train burning matter. It has now posted the appeals for final hearing as item no. 1 on February 13.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar expressed displeasure about the parties seeking adjournment in this matter. Justice Maheshwari said: "We have granted adjournment for 5-6 times. From last one year, I have been adjourning the matter."
'Essential To Protect Communal Harmony': Congress Approaches Supreme Court Supporting Places Of Worship Act
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 and connected matters
The Indian National Congress has filed an intervention opposing the ongoing challenge to the Places of Worship Act 1991 (PoWA) in the Supreme Court.
In its intervention application, the INC has expressed concerns over the motive behind the present challenge as a 'a motivated and malicious attempt to undermine established principles of secularism'. Congress stressed that the Act is "essential to safeguard secularism in India"
The INC defended the PoWA stating it to be a reflection of the secular ethos of the Country and was brought into force with the support of the popular mandate of the people. The party asserted that the Act is essential to protect communal harmony.
Supreme Court Adjourns Bail Matter After UP Counsel Appears 'Clueless', Makes Submissions From Wrong Brief
Case Details: Rinku @ Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., SLP(Crl) No. 015782/2024
The Supreme Court adjourned hearing in a bail matter after a counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government appeared "clueless" and made submissions from a wrong brief.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, following the counsel expressing an apology, and directed that the matter be listed on January 29.
"To enable the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh to prepare himself, the matter be listed on 29.01.2025", read the order.
Lawyers Must Behave With Dignity Of The Profession: Supreme Court Objects To Advocate Addressing Court From Car
Case Details: Commissioner of Service Tax (Audit I) v. Telenor Consult AS
The Supreme Court objected to a lawyer addressing the court from his car, emphasizing the need for dignity in legal proceedings.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing an appeal against a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashing a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore raised against the respondent.
During the proceedings, Justice Oka chided Advocate JK Mittal for the respondent for addressing the court while sitting in a car.
'Something Wrong In ED': ASG SV Raju Disowns ED's Affidavit, Says It's Filed Without Verification; 'Serious Matter', Says Supreme Court
Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju made a startling submission before the Supreme Court that there was something “fishy” about a counter-affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
ASG told a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which was considering the bail petition of an accused in a PMLA matter arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, that the ED's counter-affidavit was "half-baked" and was filed without proper vetting.
"There is something hanky panky as far as my department is concerned. Without consultation a half-baked affidavit in counter has been filed even before we filed an appearance for it," ASG told as soon as the matter was taken.
'We'll Resolve If Not Resolved By Next Week': Supreme Court On Deadlock Over Tamil Nadu University VC Appointments
Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
The Supreme Court orally said that if the issue regarding the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the Tamil Nadu universities are not resolved by the next date of hearing, then the Court will resolve it.
Two writ petitions filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the actions of Tamil Nadu Governor were listed before a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
'Clarify The Observations To Avoid Miscarriage Of Justice': SCBA & SCAORA Approach Supreme Court To Modify Its Order In 'Fake' Petition Case
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024
The Supreme Court heard a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the "fake" SLP case, wherein the Court had ordered a full-fledged inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
In this case, the petitioner had denied filing any special leave petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him. While ordering a CBI probe into how the SLP was filed through its order dated September 20, 2024 in Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP & Ors the Court also stated that Advocate-on Record can give an appearance of only those advocates who are authorised to appear. This judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Supreme Court Slams Centre, MCD Over Lack Of Efforts To Manage Untreated Solid Waste In Delhi, Warns Stoppage Of New Constructions
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court slammed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi over an affidavit filed by it stating that untreated solid waste in the national capital would be dealt with by December 2027.
Emphasizing on the role of Union of India in the matter, the court also said that the Union can't shut its eyes to the rising solid waste management issues.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta case pertaining to air pollution in Delhi, when it came upon the counter-affidavit filed by MCD, which it found "shocking" and "brazen".
Prior Sanction For Entertaining Private Complaint Under PC Act? Supreme Court To Hear Former Karnataka CM Yediyurappa's Pleas From February 28
Case Details: B.S Yeddiyurappa v. A Alam Pasha and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 520/2021
The Supreme Court said it will begin hearing matters pertaining to cases registered under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC) involving former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S Yediyurappa from February 28.
In the 5 matters listed against the former Karnataka CM, arising out of five different factual backgrounds, the common issue raised is whether prior sanction would be required under the PC Act and whether the position of law post the 2018 amendment makes any difference.
During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for Yediyurappa submitted before a division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra that a Private complaint was filed under PC Act when he was the Chief Minister of the state.