Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 6, 2025 To January 12, 2025

Update: 2025-01-13 10:10 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Nominal IndexCitationM/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4Municipal Corporation of Delhi v....

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Nominal Index

Citation

M/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1

Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3

BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc. | Civil Appeal Nos. 7463-7464 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 5

Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6

Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni Sahoo 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9

Jayshree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 11

Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12

Dalip Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8687 of 2012 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 13

Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho., Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15

Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 16

Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand., SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18

Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 48/2025 (and connected cases) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of M.P. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 20

Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 21

State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 23

Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 24

Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors v. State of Kerela, Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Punjab National Bank v. Atin Arora & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 27

Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors., Special Leave Petition(Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 29

Bishwajit Dey v. The State Of Assam 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30

HN Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka., Miscellaneous Application No. 2667 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 31

Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 32

Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 33

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 34

Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 35

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 38

Geetha V M & Ors v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 39

Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General Of Registration, & Ors. v. P. Babu, Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 40

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 & Anr v. M/S. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Special Leave Petition No. 63 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. (and Connected Case) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 42

Ramesh v. State Of Rajasthan., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15651 Of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 43

Jayanandan v. Varkey & Ors., Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22423 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 44

State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. R.K. Pandey and Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 10212 of 2014 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 45

NBCC (INDIA) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Amit Singh v. The State Of Rajasthan., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1134-1135 of 2023) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 48

My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49

Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 51

State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Pam Developments Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 52

H. Guruswamy & Ors v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 53

Kondiram Manikrao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 5/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Mithin Mondal And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 854/2024 & Arnav v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 17/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 55

Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 56

 Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 56230 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Orders

Anas V v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024

Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Ors. v. The Full Court of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 60205-2024

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Office of the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 1352/2023

Geeta Rani Sharma v. Election Commission of India SLP(C) No. 030277/2024

Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7023/2024

Umar Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 629/2023

Achal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 877/2020

Directorate of Enforcement v. Surender Panwar

Munitions India Limited & Anr. v. Ammunition Factory Workers Union & Ors.

Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019

MC Mehta v. Union of India

Kevin Joy & Ors. v. Government of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 106 of 2023 and other connected matters

Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Koli, Diary No. 15138-2024 (and connected cases)

Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)

TD Rajegowda v. D.N Jeevaraja, SLP(C) No.30486/2024

Ashumal @ Asharam v. State of Gujarat., SLP(Crl) No. 15945/2024

Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Bihar Public Service Commission And Ors. Diary No. 717-2025

Anjali Bhardwaj And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shakhadri v. State Of Karnataka And Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10131/2023

Ashrat@Arshad Shafiq Ahmad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, Crl A No. 776/2012; Fehmida v. State of Maharastra, Crl A. No. 777-78/2012

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad, C.A. No. 10644/ 2024

Hyder Ali v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 018063 - / 2024

Mathews J. Nedumpara And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 37275/2024

State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

Securities And Exchange Board Of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara And Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 001820 - 001822 / 2017

Dr. S Sandhya v. Dr. Ganta Sathvika Reddy, SLP(C) No. 717/2025

Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Telangana and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 132/2025

Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., MA 61/2025 in SLP(C) No. 25151/2024

Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court, WP (Crl.) No. 351/2023 (and connected cases)

Narender Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation., Diary No. 45425-2024

Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Anr. v. Union of India | RP(C) 1866/2023 and connected cases

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep

Committee of Management, Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. | SLP(C) No.28500/2024

In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019

Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh., MA 2636/2024 in SLP(Crl) No. 7053/2013

Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1181/2023

Satish Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 249/2019

Santosh Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 15/2025

Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) and Ors v. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 and connected cases

In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors.

Mohammed Jabir v. National Investigation Agency., SLP(Crl) No. 11581/2024

National Medical Forum v. Union of India & Ors.

Other Developments

Reports/Judgments

S.142 NI Act | Improper To Dismiss/Quash Cheque Dishonour Complaint Of Company At Threshold On Question Of Authorisation: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Naresh Potteries v. M/S Aarti Industries and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 8659-2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1

The Supreme Court reiterated that in the dishonour of cheque cases, where complainant is a company, it is necessary to show during the trial that the complaint, if not filed by the payee, is filed by someone having knowledge of complainant's contents. Apart from this, the same person should also be duly authorised to pursue the complaint.

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan further highlighted that the accused can raise dispute regarding the authorisation of the complainant and knowledge of the relevant transaction during the course of trial. However, dismissal or quashing of the complaint at the threshold would not be justified. Reliance was placed on several cases including A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and Another.

"When the company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant should necessarily be the company which is to be represented by an authorised employee and in such a situation, the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement, oral or by affidavit, to the effect that complainant is represented by an authorised person who has knowledge, would be sufficient."

Land Acquisition Compensation - In Exceptional Cases, Courts Can Direct Market Value Be Determined Based On A Date After Prelim Notification: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Ors v. Government of Karnataka and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2

The Supreme Court observed that although the land acquisition compensation is to be determined at the market rate prevailing on the date of issuance of the notification regarding the acquisition of land, the compensation can be determined based on a later date in exceptional circumstances when the delay in the disbursal of the compensation has been inordinate.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard a case challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision to reject the appellant's plea for compensation based on a later valuation date, contending that delays in payment had significantly impacted the land's market value, warranting compensation based on the later date rather than the date of the land acquisition notification.

Parents & Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance Tribunal Has Power To Order Eviction & Transfer Of Possession: Supreme Court

Case Details: Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 3

The Supreme Court clarified that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 has the power to order the eviction and transfer of possession.

Without such a power, the objectives of the 2007 Act - which are to grant speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies to elderly citizens- would be defeated, the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal filed by a mother seeking to annul a gift deed executed in favour of her son in 2019. The mother complained that the son was not looking after her and hence, the gift deed was liable to be cancelled as per Section 23 of the Act, since the conveyance was made subject to the condition of providing maintenance. Though the Tribunal set aside the gift deed and a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the same, a division bench of the High Court, in son's appeal, reversed the Tribunal's decision

The Supreme Court disapproved of the reasoning of the division bench that Section 23 was a standalone provision and the Tribunal had no power to transfer possession.

Complaint Within Meaning Of CrPC Is One Filed Before Judicial Magistrate & Not Executive Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details: BN John v. State of UP & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 4

The Supreme Court stated that a complaint within the meaning and scope of the Criminal Procedure Code is a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate.

The Court held that a complaint filed before an Executive Magistrate cannot be regarded as a complaint filed in terms of Section 195 of the CrPC.

To support this, Section 2(d), which defines complaint was referred to. The Court also placed its reliance on Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P., (1982) 1 SCC 71 which discussed the difference between a judicial and an executive magistrate.

Thus, a complaint within the meaning and scope of the Criminal Procedure Code would mean such a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate.,” the Bench of Justices B. v. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh stated.

The Court held that subsequent mentioning of crucial facts, which the complainant could have stated at the time of lodging of the FIR itself, would raise doubts as it indicates an afterthought.

The omission of crucial facts in the FIR cannot be supplemented through witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the Court held.

"Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed," the Court observed.

The Court made these observations while quashing a criminal case against the accused-appellant under Section 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) and Section 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the IPC.

The Bench opined that the offence specified under Section 353 is of more serious nature involving a stringent punishment when compared with Section 186. While in Section 186 voluntarily obstructing any public servant in discharge of his official function would suffice, there is clear requirement of criminal force or assault under Section 353.

Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Municipal Corporation's Powers To Issue Tariff-Based Bids For Waste-To-Energy Project

Case Details: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gagan Narang & Ors. Etc. | Civil Appeal Nos. 7463-7464 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 5

The Supreme Court upheld the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) powers to issue tariff-based bids in Waste-to-Energy (WTE) projects under the Electricity Act 2003.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) which set aside the decision of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) dated 6th and 7th March 2023.

The Court observed that the impugned order of APTEL overlooked the larger public interest involved in the disposal of the huge quantity of waste produced in the National Capital.

"The APTEL also failed to take into consideration that the WTE project in question was in the larger public interest thereby providing for disposal of the huge quantity of waste generated in the city of Delhi."

Sale Deed Executed After Adoption By Mother For Pre-Adoption Property Binding On Adopted Child: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sri Mahesh v. Sangram & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10558 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 6

The Supreme Court observed that although a widow female Hindu's adopted child's rights relate to the date of the adoptive father's death, it would not divest the rights acquired by a female Hindu before an adoption.

In other words, the court stated that any transaction made by the adoptive mother regarding the suit property acquired by her prior to the adoption would remain binding on the adopted child after the adoption.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the property acquired by a female Hindu before the child's adoption remains her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”), and therefore as per Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) the child's adoption would not divest her of the rights acquired by her before adoption.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision validating the sale deed executed by the Appellant's adoptive mother in favor of other defendants after the Appellant's adoption.

High Courts Can Quash Criminal Proceedings Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Also Apart From S.482 CrPC Power: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7

The Supreme Court observed that apart from exercising its power to quash a criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can also exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the criminal case to prevent misuse of the law.

“It is true that normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in an invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's decision that refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants in the exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Mere Registration Of Will Won't Make It Valid Unless Its Execution Proved As Per Evidence Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Leela & Ors. v. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8

The Supreme Court reiterated that mere registration of a will would not make it valid unless the same is not proved as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. While the first provision pertains to the execution of unprivileged wills, the other one talks about the proof of execution of document.

The Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal further noted that as per Section 68, at least one attesting witness has to be examined to prove execution of a Will. Reliance was placed on the recent cases of Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Can Look Into Police Records To Determine Question Of Negligence: Supreme Court

Case Details: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rajni Sahoo

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 9

The Supreme Court reiterated that in motor accident claim cases, police records can be looked into by the Tribunal/Court to determine the question of negligence.

A bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal referred to Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors(2018) which held that charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases can be relied upon.

It was held in Mangla Ram that the filing of charge-sheet prima against the driver facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.

"Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into," the Bench observed.

The Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by an insurer against a judgment of the High Court in a motor accident compensation case.

Grant Of Bail Must Be Subject To Embargo In Special Enactments: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Of MCOCA Accused

Case Details: Jayshree Kanabar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 10

The Supreme Court held that when a special law imposes an embargo on the grant of bail, then the Courts must exercise the power to grant bail subject to the conditions specified under the special provision.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol set aside the bail granted to an accused charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) because instead of limiting its consideration to whether the conditions of bail gets fulfilled or not, the High Court delved into the correctness of the prosecution's case and sufficiency of the evidence.

Laws Applicable To Andhra Pradesh Continue To Apply To New States Of Telangana & AP After Bifurcation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 11

The Supreme Court clarified that all laws applicable to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh would continue to apply to the newly carved out States of Telangana & AP till such time the laws were altered, repealed, or amended.

A bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal set aside a common judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were quashed on grounds that the offences alleged were within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh, even after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State.

The Supreme Court held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) does not require permission from the State Government to register a First Information Report (FIR) under the Central Legislation against a Central Government employee just because the employee happens to work within the territory of a particular State.

In this case, two FIRs were registered against central government employees working in Andhra Pradesh under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The two accused persons then moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court contending that the general consent given for the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (DSPE) by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh cannot apply to the State after its bifurcation and that a fresh consent was needed from the newly formed State of AP. The High Court quashed the proceedings.

The bench set aside the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had interpreted the DSPE, 1946 to mean that the consent of Andhra Pradesh was required to investigate the cases.

Accused Who Absconded Can Be Prosecuted Under S.174A IPC Even If Proclamation Under S.82 CrPC Is Extinguished: Supreme Court

Case Details: Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 12

The Supreme Court observed that while a proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be enforced if the underlying case is quashed, the accused may still be penalized under Section 174A IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation, as it constitutes an independent offence arising from the initial proclamation.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the case where the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash the proclamation issued against the Appellant in response to non-appearance in the cheque dishonor case in which he was already exonerated. Also, the High Court refused to quash the offence made out under Section 174A of IPC for failing to appear in response to the proclamation.

Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Lease & Allotment

Case Details: Dalip Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8687 of 2012

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 13

The Supreme Court while deciding a batch of civil appeals, reiterated that terms lease and allotment are different. Lease is a temporary grant whereas allotment though is a temporary right of use and occupation of evacuee but does not include a grant by way of a lease., the Court said.

The Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal relied upon a thread of precedents Amar Singh & Ors. v. Custodian, Evacuee Property & Ors., 1957 INSC 28, Basant Ram v. Union of India., AIR 1962 SC 994 to hold:

"In Dalip Ram's case (supra), which was dismissed as per orders in this judgment, we have held that 'lease' and 'allotment' are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease."

High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse: Supreme Court

Case Details: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ Jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances when the impugned order suffers from perversity.

“It is evident from the above that even as per the quote hereinabove interference under Article 226/227 is 'permissible only if the order is completely perverse i.e. that the perversity must stare in the face.”, the court said.

Observing that the High Court failed to point out any perversity in the tribunal's order, the judgment authored by Justice Narasimha deprecated the practice of interfering with the arbitral process when full opportunity was granted to the parties to present their case in the proceedings governed under Section 18 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”).

Finding That 'Will Is Validly Executed' Doesn't Mean 'Will Is Genuine': Supreme Court

Case Details: Lilian Coelho & Ors. v. Myra Philomena Coalho., Civil Appeal No. 7198 of 2009

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 15

The Supreme Court observed that once the execution of the will is proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, then it shall be the 'irrecusable duty' of Court to call upon a propounder (person presenting the will before the Court for approval) to remove any raised suspicious circumstances.

The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that a 'Will is validly executed' and a 'Will is genuine' cannot be said to be the same. The Court explained that even if it is proved that the will was executed in accordance with the law, the same cannot lead to the presumption about its genuineness.

Arbitration Act 1940 | 30-Day Objection Period Starts When Objector Becomes Aware of Award, Not Upon Formal Notice: Supreme Court

Case Details: Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 16

The Supreme Court noted that under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (“1940 Act”), 30-day period for filing objections begins when the objector becomes aware of the award, not upon receiving formal notice

“The question for consideration is whether the time for filing a Section 17 application commences when the party seeking to challenge the award receives a formal notice (18.11.2022) of the making of the award, or from the date such party is aware of the existence of the award. In fact, this issue is no more res-integra. Following certain precedents of this Court, we have allowed the appeal having found that the respondent was fully aware of the making of the Award (by 21.09.2022), for the law does not require a formal notice of the making of the Award, as against knowledge/notice of the Award.”, the Court said.

The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision which affirmed the trial court's decision to declare the Appellant's application for making of the award as premature because it was filed before the commencement of the limitation period for filing objection against the award.

S.354 IPC | To Establish Mens Rea, Something More Than Vague Statements Must Be Produced: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet

Case Details: Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17

The Supreme Court observed that for Section 354 IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) to apply, criminal force must be used. Further, such application of force must be coupled with intention to outrage a woman's modesty.

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and C.T. Ravikumar added that in order to establish mens rea something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. Mere bald assertions of mental and physical discomfort would not suffice.

Motor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced: Supreme Court

Case Details: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand., SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 18

The Supreme Court while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income.

The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction.

'IBC A Complete Code': Supreme Court Disapproves Of High Court Exercising Writ Jurisdiction To Interdict CIRP

Case Details: Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 48/2025 (and connected cases)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Disapproving a High Court's order interdicting a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court observed that the IBC is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, and thus, the exercise of supervisory and judicial review powers by High Courts demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application.

Allowing the appeal of a successful resolution applicant against Karnataka High Court's interdicting of the CIRP, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra said,

"In view of the delay in approaching the High Court, particularly when respondent no.1 himself has initiated proceedings under the Code by filing interlocutory applications seeking similar relief, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition...Apart from delay and laches, High Court should have noted that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. This is certainly not a case for the High Court to interdict CIRP proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code."

Chargesheet Cannot Be Based On Bald Assertions Of Connivance: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of M.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 20

The Supreme Court held that offences in the chargesheet cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance. There must be some substance to it.

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol also held that if the intent prima facie is absent qua one of the offences in the same transaction, it is absent in respect of other offences as well.

S. 63(c) Indian Succession Act | Unprivileged Will Executable If Attesting Witness Sees Testator Signing Or Affixing Mark On Will: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 21

The Supreme Court observed that 'Unprivileged Will' is deemed to be executable under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“Act”) when the attesting witnesses have witnessed the Will's testator signing or affixing their mark on the Will.

Section 63 of the Act outlines the procedural requirements for executing unprivileged Wills. Sub-section (c) requires that: (i) two or more witnesses must attest the Will, (ii) Each witness must either:

a) Witness the testator signing or affixing their mark; or

b) Witness another person signing at the testator's direction; or

c) Receive personal acknowledgment from the testator regarding their signature or mark.

'Bank Should Remain Vigilant': Supreme Court Holds SBI Liable To Refund Amount To Customer Who Reported Fraudulent Transaction

Case Details: State Bank of India v. Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 22

The Supreme Court observed that banks cannot shy away from the responsibility to safeguard their customers from unauthorized transactions reported from their accounts. The Court added that it expects the account holders to also remain extremely vigilant and to see that the O.T.Ps. generated are not shared with any third party.

The Court upheld the State Bank of India's (“SBI”) liability for the fraudulent and unauthorized transactions reported in the customer's bank account. It advised banks to be vigilant, utilizing the best available technology to prevent fraudulent and unauthorized transactions.

“All transactions relating to the account of the respondent No.1 – herein maintained with the petitioner - Bank were found to be unauthorized and fraudulent. It is the responsibility of the bank so far as such unauthorized and fraudulent transactions are concerned. The Bank should remain vigilant. The Bank has the best of the technology available today to detect and prevent such unauthorized and fraudulent transaction. Further, clauses 8 and 9 respectively of the RBI's Circular dated 6-7-2017 make the position further clear.”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

When Foreigners Are Granted Bail, Inform Registration Officer Under Foreigners Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 23

The Supreme Court ruled that it is unnecessary to implead Civil Authority or Registration Officer under the Foreigners Act, 1946 in bail applications filed by foreign nationals.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reasoned that these authorities lack locus standi to oppose bail applications unless the offence involves Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

we do not see any propriety in issuing a direction that either the Civil Authority or the Registration Officer should be made a party to a bail application filed by a foreigner or a notice of the bail application be issued to the said authorities. The reason is that the authorities under the Act and the Order have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The impleadment of the Civil Authority or Registration Officer in all bail applications filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications”, the Court held.

The Court issued the following directions:

  1. When granting bail to a foreigner, the concerned court must direct the investigating agency or State to immediately inform the Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 about the grant of bail.
  2. The Registration Officer must then notify all relevant authorities, including the Civil Authorities, enabling them to take appropriate steps under the law.

S. 319 CrPC | Accused Who Was Dropped By Police In Chargesheet Can Be Summoned As Additional Accused By Court: Supreme Court

Case Details: Omi @ Omkar Rathore & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 24

The Supreme Court observed that the filing of a police closure report would not bar the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

The Court observed that if the evidence presented during the trial indicates that a person should be summoned to face trial, the trial court has the discretionary power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon them as an additional accused, even if they were not named in the FIR or were exonerated in a police closure report.

The Court clarified that the trial court is not bound by the police investigation or the closure report but must exercise its discretionary power to summon an additional accused based on the evidence presented during the trial.

“On a careful reading of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Accused Cannot Claim Acquittal On Ground Of Faulty Investigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors v. State of Kerela, Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 25

The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot claim acquittal solely on grounds of faulty investigation. It explained that defective investigation does not automatically benefit the accused persons and Courts will have to consider the rest of the evidence relied on by the prosecution.

Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc. It has been a consistent stand of this court that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.,'' held Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale.

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation For B.Tech Student Who Got Disabled After Motor Accident To Rs. 48 Lakhs

Case Details: Atul Tiwari v. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 26

The Supreme Court enhanced compensation granted to a B.Tech student who suffered 60 percent disability after a motor accident from Rs. 35.48 lakhs awarded by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to Rs. 48 lakhs.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that while monetary compensation cannot replace a life lost or fully mitigate severe injuries, it should aim to provide just relief for the harm suffered.

It is well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate. This court in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. has observed that basis for assessment of all damages for person injury is compensation. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that victim has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered…Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum”, the Court observed.

The Court upheld the compensation granted by the High Court under the head “Loss of Income” but observed that the compensation for medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages was insufficient.

S. 21 CPC | Objections To Place Of Suing Can't Be Allowed Unless Taken In Court Of First Instance At Earliest Opportunity: Supreme Court

Case Details: Punjab National Bank v. Atin Arora & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 27

The Supreme Court held that objections to jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), must be filed at the earliest, and no objection will be entertained at the belated stage unless injustice is caused.

“The principle enjoins that objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. This Court, in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Anr., has held that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. These principles were reiterated by this Court in Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas (Dead) by LRS. and Ors.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed.

Right To Appeal Against Conviction Is Also A Fundamental Right; Can't Be Dismissed On Delay Without Examining Reasons For Delay: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 28

The Supreme Court observed that the right to appeal against a conviction is a statutory right granted to the accused under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., and a properly explained delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid ground for its dismissal.

"Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right," the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing the appeal filed against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the conviction because there was a delay of 1637 days in preferring the appeal against the conviction.

High Court Can't Ordinarily Reappreciate Evidence In Article 226 Proceedings: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors., Special Leave Petition(Civil) Nos. 34407-34408 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 29

The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence unless the appropriate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.

It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.,” held Justices Sanjay Karol and CT Ravikumar.

NDPS Act Doesn't Bar Interim Release Of Seized Vehicle Pending Disposal Of Criminal Case: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bishwajit Dey v. The State Of Assam

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 30

The Supreme Court held that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) doesn't prohibit the interim release of vehicles which are seized for allegedly transporting contraband. The Court added that the seized vehicle can be released under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC.

“This Court is further of the opinion that there is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case.”, the court held.

“In the absence of any specific bar under the NDPS Act and in view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case. Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case.”, the court added.

The Supreme Court outlined four distinct scenarios that arise in cases involving the seizure of vehicles used to transport narcotic substances, as punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

The four types of scenarios are:

Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substances is recovered.

Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner.

Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle.

Fourthly, where the contraband is seized/recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner's knowledge and connivance.

“In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused.”, the Court answered.

The Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for the alleged transport of drugs cannot be confiscated if the owner of the vehicle can prove that it was used by the accused person without the owner's knowledge or connivance

Offence Of Grievous Hurt By Dangerous Weapons(S.326 IPC) Can Be Compromised In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

Case Details: HN Pandakumar v. State of Karnataka., Miscellaneous Application No. 2667 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 31

The Supreme Court observed that while Section 326 (punishment for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is non-compoundable, the Court can, in exceptional circumstances, invoke its inherent power to give effect to compromise. Such circumstance also includes voluntary settlement between the parties.

In light of the amicable settlement and the complainant's unequivocal consent, as evidenced by the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the present M.A. While the offense under Section 326 IPC is noncompoundable under the provisions of the Criminal. Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court's inherent powers to give effect to the compromise.”

The Bench of Justices Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale were deciding an application filed in an appeal upholding the conviction of the present petitioner.

Vicarious Liability Of Company Directors/Officials Not Automatic: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 32

The Supreme Court noted that directors/officials cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's illegal actions unless it is demonstrated that the official personally engaged in the conduct directly linking them to the company's liability, and such liability is supported by a specific statutory provision.

“While a company may be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, the liability of its directors is not automatic. It depends on specific circumstances, particularly the interplay between the director's personal actions and the company's responsibilities. A director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such director personally acted in a manner that directly connects their conduct to the company's liability. Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties. Thus, where the company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. There has to be a specific act attributed to the director or any other person allegedly in control and management of the company, to the effect that such a person was responsible for the acts committed by or on behalf of the company.”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Domestic Violence Act Cases Have No Penal Consequence Except For Breach Of Protection Order: Supreme Court Criticises Issuance Of Bailable Warrants

Case Details: Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 33

The Supreme Court criticized the issuance of bailable warrant by a Magistrate in a cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The Court remarked that there is no justification for issuing bailable warrants in cases under the Domestic Violence Act as they are quasi-criminal proceedings and do not carry penal consequences unless a protection order is violated.

“This Court is constrained to observe that there is no justification whatsoever for the Trial Court to have issued bailable warrants in an application filed under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.”, the bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

'Land Meant For Poor Can't Be Commercially Exploited': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Convey Mumbai Plot To Pvt Company

Case Details: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 34

The Supreme Court set aside Bombay High Court's order directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to execute a formal conveyance deed in favour of Century Textiles and Industries Limited granting it ownership rights over approximately five acres land in Lower Parel.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed MCGM's appeal noting that the High Court should have rejected Century Mills' petition due to its inordinate delay in seeking conveyance over six decades after the expiry of its lease executed for constructing homes under the Poorer Classes Accommodation Scheme (PCAS).

The Court further observed that request made by Century Textiles in 2009 for altering the use of the land for commercial purposes represented a breach of the lease conditions and a subversion of the statutory policy aimed at uplifting marginalized groups.

'Time He Lost Can't Be Restored': Supreme Court Frees Prisoner After 25 Years, Finds He Was A Minor At The Time Of Offence

Case Details: Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 35

The Supreme Court ordered the release of a prisoner, who has been under incarceration for nearly 25 years, after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence in the year 1994.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar found that he was only 14 years old at the time of the commission of the offence.

The Supreme Court has held that a plea of juvenility, which was not properly considered by Courts as per due procedure, cannot be treated as final. Therefore, a fresh plea of juvenility can be raised when the plea of juvenility was improperly adjudicated upon in the previous rounds.

For context, plea of juvenility is a plea raised by accused/convicts that they were minors at the time of the alleged offence and hence, they could not have bee tried by regular courts.

The Court made this significant observation while accepting the plea of juvenility raised by a convict, despite the fact that all courts, including the Supreme Court, had previously rejected the same. The Court observed that in the earlier rounds, there was no proper adjudication, and hence, the convict cannot be prevented from raising the plea again.

Frame Cashless Treatment Scheme For Road Accident Victims During 'Golden Hour' By March 14: Supreme Court Directs Centre

Case Details: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 36

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to frame a scheme for cashless treatment for victims of motor vehicle accidents during the “golden hour”, the first hour after a traumatic injury when prompt medical care has the highest likelihood of preventing death by March 14, 2025.

Once the scheme is framed and its implementation starts, it will save the lives of several injured persons who succumb to injury simply because they do not receive requisite medical treatment during the golden hour. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to make a scheme in terms of Sub Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025. No further time shall be granted”, the Court observed

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the urgency of implementing a scheme provided under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), to ensure immediate medical aid to accident victims -

The provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme.

Second Suit On Same Cause Of Action Must Be Filed Within 3 Years Of Rejection Of Earlier Plaint: Supreme Court

Case Details: Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 37

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent suit on the same cause of action would be barred by limitation if filed beyond three years after the rejection of an earlier plaint.

The Court rejected the argument that Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) justifies filing a fresh suit after the rejection of the earlier plaint. Instead, the Court said the subsequent suit would be barred by Limitation if filed beyond the period of three years after the rejection of an earlier suit.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh added that the subsequent suit would be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) being barred under limitation law because Rule 13 does not override the law of limitation i.e., the new suit must still comply with the limitation period under the Limitation Act.

The Supreme Court explained when does the 'right to sue' accrues in a civil case. It observed that the “right to sue” accrues when there is a cause of action that justifies legal action. This means the plaintiff has a substantive right to seek relief, and this right has been infringed or threatened by the defendant.

Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar

Case Details: Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 38

The Supreme Court quashed a cheating case against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar concerning alleged lang grabbing and fraudulent sale of property by Arolkar

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Arolkar against Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss a petition filed by Arolkar seeking the quashing of the cheating case.

"In this case, it is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in body, mind, reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent. He has not purported to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent to transfer or deliver the subject property. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant", the Court held.

Govt Employee Transferred By Way Of Absorption To Another Department Can Retain Seniority Of Previous Dept: Supreme Court

Case Details: Geetha V M & Ors v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 39

The Supreme Court held that employees who are transferred on absorption to another department are entitled to retain the seniority of their previous department as per the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules(KS&SSR).

The Court held that the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the KS & SSR, which hold that previous seniority cannot be claimed when an employee is transferred on request, won't apply to transfer on absorption.

The Supreme Court has observed that the transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest. It added that the government is the best judge to decide how to utilise the services of an employee. Further, if an employee requests, the government may post that employee as per the request. However, such transfer will not be in public interest as the same is based on the employee's request and not administration exigencies.

It cannot be disputed that the Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of an employee. Simultaneously, if employee makes a request due to some hardship and if the authority or the Government as the case may be is satisfied, it may post such employee as per request, but such transfer cannot be termed as transfer in public interest because it is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the public administration.”

Indian Stamp Act | Registering Authority Cannot Mechanically Refer Sale Deed To Collector, Prima Facie Finding On Undervaluation Needed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General Of Registration, & Ors. v. P. Babu, Civil Appeal Nos. 75-76 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 40

The Supreme Court observed that in case of undervaluation of property sale's price, the Registering Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 cannot mechanically make reference to the Collector (stamps) for determination of the correct market value of the property. Instead, an opportunity is to be provided to the party, and reasons have to be furnished by the Registering Authority for arriving at a conclusion that the property is undervalued.

“It is not permissible for the Registering Officer to undertake a roving enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the correct market value of the property. If the Registering Officer is bona fide of the view that the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is not correct and the sale is undervalued, then it is obligatory on the part of the Registering Authority as well as the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) to assign some reason for arriving at such a conclusion. In such circumstances, if the document in question is straightway referred to the Collector without recording any prima facie reason, the same would vitiate the entire enquiry and the ultimate decision”, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

Reduction In Share Capital Amounts To Transfer Of Capital Asset Under Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 & Anr v. M/S. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Special Leave Petition No. 63 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 41

The Supreme Court reiterated that reduction in share capital is covered under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which talks about transfer of a capital asset. It explained that such reduction would be come under the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in the provision.

For reference, the concerned portion of Section 2(47) reads as:

transfer' in relation to a capital asset, includes, (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law…”

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said that this provision provides an inclusive definition of transfer, covering relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right.

While the taxpayer continues to remain a shareholder of the company even with the reduction of share capital, it could not be accepted that there was no extinguishment of any part of his right as a shareholder qua the company.,” it added.

'Unauthorised Sale Of Railway Tickets Online Offence': Supreme Court Restores Cases For Fraudulent IRCTC Site Use

Case Details: Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v. Mathew K Cherian & Anr. (and Connected Case)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 42

The Supreme Court reinstated the proceedings initiated under Section 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 ("Act") against the accused, who had been involved in unauthorized activities by creating multiple user IDs to sell E-railway tickets.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned the Kerala High Court's decision that had quashed the proceedings against the respondent against whom the allegation was that he had unlawfully procured and sold e-railway tickets by creating hundreds of IRCTC IDs. The High Court had ruled that the liability under Section 143 of the Act applied only when tickets were sold offline and did not extend to cases of unauthorized online ticket sales.

Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Probation Of Offenders Act To 70 Year Old Convict

Case Details: Ramesh v. State Of Rajasthan., Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15651 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 43

The Supreme Court (on January 09) invoked its inherent power to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to an accused as the same was granted to another accused in a cross-case due to a settlement reached between the parties. The Court also took into account the fact that there were no previous antecedents or adverse material against the conduct of the present accused/ appellant.

Under the circumstances, we are inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant the benefit of the Probation Act to the present appellant also, which had been granted to the other accused belonging to the other conflicting group in the cross case, considering the fact that a settlement was reached between the parties and neither any criminal antecedents nor any adverse material against the conduct of the appellant, have been brought to the notice of this Court.,” held Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Motor Accident Claim | Loss Of One Eye's Vision Is 100% Functional Disability For A Diamond Cutter: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation

Case Details: Jayanandan v. Varkey & Ors., Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22423 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 44

The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation for a diamond cutter, who lost the vision of one eye, due to a motor vehicle accident.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan was deciding a petition preferred by the claimant-appellant, a diamond cutter by profession. Due to the alleged rashness and negligence of the auto rikshaw driver, he suffered a complete loss of vision in one eye.

Supreme Court Sets Aside Awards Of Over Rs 46 Lakhs Passed Against UP Govt In Sham Arbitration Proceedings

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. R.K. Pandey and Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 10212 of 2014

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 45

The Supreme Court set aside two ex-parte arbitration awards on grounds of fraud played by the litigant who appointed sole arbitrators and conducted 'sham' arbitration proceedings in a service dispute against U.P. Government and Government Hospital where he was employed.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the veracity of the ex parte awards and the arbitration agreement relied by the respondent on the basis of which such arbitration proceedings were conducted.

Can Unregistered MSMEs Avail Dispute Settlement Under S.18 MSMED Act? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Case Details: NBCC (INDIA) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 46

The Supreme Court observed that for invoking the payment dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), it is not mandatory for the MSMEs to have prior registration under Section 8 of MSMED Act i.e., filing of an Entrepreneur's Memorandum.

Rejecting the argument that only registered enterprises at the time of contract formation are eligible to invoke payment dispute resolution mechanism, the Court observed that even unregistered enterprises at the time of contract execution can avail of the statutory remedies under Section 18.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal was dealing with the issue of whether an MSME can invoke the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18 of the MSMED Act without prior registration under Section 8 before entering into the contract.

Wife Can Claim Maintenance From Husband Even If She Doesn't Live With Him As Per Decree On Conjugal Rights Restitution: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47

In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court held that a wife, even if she refuses to live with her husband despite a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against her, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The issue before the bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was that “Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial home?”

The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that a wife's refusal to comply with the decree of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on just cause would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Convict Given Benefit Of Probation Won't Suffer Any Disqualification Due To Conviction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amit Singh v. The State Of Rajasthan., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1134-1135 of 2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 48

The Supreme Court held that when a Court confirms a conviction but extends the benefit of probation on grounds of good conduct, it cannot deny the consequential benefit which is the removal of disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction.

At the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal decided the issue on the limited question of whether having extended the benefit of probation for good conduct, can the consequential benefit be denied.

Supreme Court Flags Stringent Limitation Provisions Curtailing Arbitration Appeal Remedies, Urges Parliament To Address Issue

Case Details: My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/S Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49

The Supreme Court raised concerns about the interpretation of limitation statutes in arbitration cases and observed that the rigid application of the law could curtail the limited remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge arbitral awards.

In our view, the above construction of limitation statutes is quite stringent and unduly curtails a remedy available to arbitrating parties to challenge the validity of an arbitral award. This must be addressed by the Parliament”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed an appeal filed by a company against a Delhi High Court judgment rejecting its challenge to an arbitral award as barred by limitation under Section 34.

Justice Narasimha observed that remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, which deal with challenging arbitral awards and appeals, are inherently limited due to statutory prescription and advocated for liberal interpretation of limitation provisions to preserve the limited window for parties to contest an award. A rigid approach, he warned, could result in denying remedies and discourage arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.

The Supreme Court in a judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal called for legislative reforms to ensure uniform limitation periods across statutes, enabling courts to condone delays beyond rigid limits in cases where sufficient cause is shown.

Non-Recovery Of Crime Weapon Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If There Are Direct Reliable Witnesses: Supreme Court

Case Details: Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 50

The Supreme Court reiterated that the non-recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case, if there are direct reliable witnesses.

Reliance was placed on Rakesh v. State of U.P., wherein the Court had previously held that for convicting an accused, recovery of the weapon used in the commission of an offence is not a sine qua non.

The Bench, comprising Justices B.R Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, was deciding the present appellants' plea against conviction under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. 

Though Normally Employers Insist On Experience Gained Post-Qualification, There Could Be Exceptions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 51

The Supreme Court observed that though employers normally insist on the experience gained after obtaining a particular qualification, there could be exceptions as well.

"Although, normally, experience gained after acquiring a particular qualification could justifiably be insisted upon by the employer, there could be exceptions," the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the appeal filed against the Kerala High Court's decision which overturned the Administrative Tribunal's order promoting the Appellant to the post of Associate Professor.

S. 80 CPC | Amendments To Plaint Linked To Main Cause Of Action Constitutes Continuous Of Action, No Notice Required To Government: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Pam Developments Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 52

The Supreme Court observed that when an application seeking an amendment to plaint is filed due to subsequent developments intrinsically linked to the main cause of action, it constitutes a continuous cause of action, and no notice to the government is required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The primary issue for consideration before the Court was whether a notice under Section 80 CPC is required to be served upon the government before seeking an amendment to plaint based on the subsequent developments or cause of action intrinsically tied to the main cause of action.

Section 80 CPC requires the party filing a suit against a government to give a two-month prior notice to the government or its officers before instituting the Suit. The Court observed that without altering the nature of the suit if an amendment application merely incorporated subsequent facts into an ongoing case, a notice under Section 80 would be deemed irrelevant.

The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma

Delay Can't Be Condoned Based On Merits Of Main Matter If There's No Sufficient Explanation For Delay: Supreme Court

Case Details: H. Guruswamy & Ors v. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 53

The Supreme Court, observed that while considering an application to condone delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation.

"Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter.

“It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.,” the Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed.

Supreme Court Slams Maharashtra Officials For Non-Payment Of Land Acquisition Compensation, Directs Recovery Of Cost From Guilty Officers

Case Details: Kondiram Manikrao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP(C) No. 5/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 54

The Supreme Court slammed Maharashtra authorities over non-payment of timely compensation to persons whose lands were compulsory acquired by the state way back in 2005.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with the petitioner's (Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed) plea against a High Court order, whereby the Zilla Parishad was directed to pay compensation to respondent-claimants against compulsory acquisition of their lands in 2005.

IIT-JEE: Supreme Court Refuses To Review Reduction Of JEE(Advanced) Attempts; Grants Relief To Petitioners Who Dropped Out

Case Details: Mithin Mondal And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 854/2024 & Arnav v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) No. 17/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 55

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the authorities to reduce the attempts for Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) from three to two.

At the same time, the Court granted relief to petitioners, who dropped out of their courses between November 5, 2024, and November 18, 2024, by allowing them to take part in the exam.

Propounder Taking Prominent Part In Will's Execution & Getting Substantial Benefit Raises Suspicions, Must Be Dispelled: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 56

The Supreme Court ruled that a propounder who substantially benefits from a Will and participates in its execution raises suspicion, which must be dispelled with clear evidence. The propounder is expected to testify about the proper execution, the presence of attesting witnesses, and other key details.

The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh further held that under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, presenting one attesting witness is insufficient to prove execution unless they confirm the presence and actions of the other attesting witnesses.

'Right To Access Justice Not Absolute': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Multiple Frivolous Cases

Case Details:  PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNE v. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 56230 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 57

The Supreme Court imposed a heavy cost of Rs.1,00,000 on the petitioner, who over the span of more than 11 years filed frivolous litigants and indulged in forum shopping more than 10 times including before the High Court of Bombay and the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal while upholding the right of the litigants to access the courts as the cornerstone of democracy called out on litigants like the present petitioner responsible for "not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others".

"..the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system."

Orders

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against UP Court's Remarks On 'Love Jihad'

Case Details: Anas V v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking expunging of 'Love-Jihad' remarks in an Uttar Pradesh Court's order as well as guidelines to ensure that judicial pronouncements remain free from personal/generalized observations.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition as not pressed, noting that the petitioner had no locus (not being a party before the UP court) and was merely 'sensationalizing' the issue.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Advocate For Alleging Nepotism In Senior Designations For Judges' Relatives, Warns Of Contempt

Case Details: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Ors. v. The Full Court of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 60205-2024

The Supreme Court slammed Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara over a plea filed insinuating that it is impossible to find any constitutional court judge (sitting or retired) across the country whose offspring/brother/sister/nephew over 40 yrs of age has not been designated as a senior advocate.

The petition was filed challenging the recent senior designations conferred by the Delhi High Court on 70 advocates.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, taking offense to the averment in the petition (drafted and sworn by Nedumpara) asked if Nedumpara would like to amend and remove the offending assertions. Following initial reservations from the petitioner's side, the bench sternly warned that it would take appropriate steps in accordance with law against all petitioners for the "scurrilous and unfounded allegations made against the institution" if the petition continues to remain in the same format.

The matter was adjourned to enable Nedumpara to reflect upon the bench's observations and consult with other petitioners on the future course of action.

'Funds Coming For 'Farishtey Dilli Ke' Scheme': Delhi Govt Withdraws Plea In Supreme Court Against LG

Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Office of the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(C) No. 1352/2023

After being told that the issue of non-payment has been resolved, the Supreme Court disposed of the dispute pending between Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government and Delhi LG VK Saxena over re-operationalization of the 'Farishtey' scheme (for road accident victims) by releasing pending hospital bills and making timely payments to private hospitals.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order upon hearing Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat (for Delhi government) who submitted that pursuant to issuance of notice in the matter, moneys have started coming in and therefore the petitioner-government did not wish to press the petition.

HC Incorrect In Deleting District Magistrate As Necessary Party In Election Petition: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea

Case Details: Geeta Rani Sharma v. Election Commission of India SLP(C) No. 030277/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which allowed the deletion of Election Commission of India (ECI) and District Magistrate as necessary parties in an election petition challenging the Lok Sabha elections in Gautam Buddha Nagar Constituency in Uttar Pradesh.

Before the High Court, the petitioner had filed an election petition with respect to wrongful rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officer under Section 100(1)(c) of the Act, and impleaded the ECI as necessary party.

The main challenge was regarding the Lok Sabha election for the seat of Gautam Buddha Nagar Constituency. Notably Dr Mahesh Sharma won the 17th LokSabha from the said constituency.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar while issuing notice, observed that the High Court was incorrect at least in removing the District Magistrate from the proceedings considering that the winning candidate alone would not able to furnish information on nomination papers.

Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Row: Supreme Court Bench Questions Excavation At Site Despite Interim Order

Case Details: Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar v. Hindu Front For Justice and Ors., SLP(C) No. 7023/2024

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place before CJI Sanjiv Khanna a petition challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's order whereby the Archaeological Survey of India was directed to conduct a survey at the Bhojshala Temple-cum-Kamal Maula Mosque complex.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that a CJI-led bench is in seisin of a batch of cases wherein Places of Worship Act has been challenged.

Supreme Court Asks UP Govt To Provide Medical & Enquiry Reports On Gangster-Politician Mukhtar Ansari's Death To His Son

Case Details: Umar Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 629/2023

The Supreme Court asked Uttar Pradesh authorities to furnish copies of medical and enquiry reports pertaining to the death of gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari to his son Umar Ansari.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, which upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Umar Ansari), asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for UP) to supply to the petitioner copies of all relevant reports pertaining to Mukhtar Ansari's death. The UP government was given 2 weeks' time to do the needful.

'Not Prudent To Deploy Outsourced Staff In Judicial Institutions': Supreme Court Raises Concerns About CAT Jammu Bench

Case Details: Achal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 877/2020

While dealing with a matter pertaining to functioning of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) bench at Jammu, the Supreme Court flagged concerns about outsourcing of private individuals into judicial institutions and running of the institutions at private properties.

"It is highly desirable that there should be a permanent building of the Tribunal alongwith proper courtrooms, chambers, officers and other staff of the Tribunal. Similarly, it may not be prudent to deploy the outsourced staff in judicial/quasi-judicial institutions where maintenance of records, confidentiality and updating of records are day-to-day challenges", said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea Against HC Quashing Arrest Of Former Congress MLA Surender Panwar

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Surender Panwar

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to quash the arrest of former Congress MLA Surender Panwar in a money laundering case pertaining to alleged illegal mining and fabrication of e-rawana bills.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih clarified that the findings of the High Court were rendered solely to address the issue of the legality of the arrest and would not affect the merits of the ongoing complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The High Court had also directed the ED to take remedial measures to prevent undue harassment during investigations. It recommended adopting reasonable time limits for interrogation sessions and ensuring compliance with human rights standards laid down by the United Nations.

Supreme Court Rejects PSU's Plea Against Order To Include HRA & Other Allowances In Overtime Wage Calculation

Case Details: Munitions India Limited & Anr. v. Ammunition Factory Workers Union & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by PSU Munitions India Limited against an interim order of the Bombay High Court directing the implementation of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) decision that mandated including certain compensatory allowances in the calculation of overtime wages under the Factories Act, 1948.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, clarified, however, that the petitioners could approach the High Court to seek an expedited hearing of their pending petition against the CAT decision.

Caste Discrimination In Colleges: Supreme Court Seeks Data From UGC On Equal Opportunity Cells, Action On Complaints Received

Case Details: Abeda Salim Tadvi and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1149/2019

In a PIL filed by the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi assailing caste discrimination in higher educational institutions (HEIs), the Supreme Court called on the University Grants Commission to collate and furnish data from universities (central/state/private/deemed) with regard to setting up of Equal Opportunity Cells and total number of complaints received under the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 along with action taken reports.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Advocate Disha Wadekar (for petitioners) who stressed UGC's failure to implement the 2012 regulations and urged the court to seek data from the Union of India and the National Assessment and Accreditation Council - including data as to the number of suicides by students belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category in HEIs.

Supreme Court Mulls Extending Order For Colour-Coded Stickers To Identity Fuel-Type Of Vehicles Beyond Delhi-NCR

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of identifying vehicles by their fuel type using colour-coded stickers in addressing air pollution. The Court observed that merely issuing orders without enforcement would not address vehicular pollution.

Some action has to be taken against vehicles which are not compliant, only passing these orders will not serve any purpose”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.

Justice Oka noted that the GRAP framework, which includes removing diesel vehicles during severe pollution, relies on these stickers for enforcement. “That's actually the most vital purpose. So those (vehicles) which diesel stickers could be picked up”, he observed.

A bench Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discussed extending the applicability of the Court's earlier directions mandating the use of hologram-based stickers of different colours for different fuel types in the National Capital Region (NCR) to all other states and union territories.

The orders of this court, the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Clauses 6(viii) and 6(ix) of Motor Vehicle (High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2018 operate in the same field. There cannot be any dispute that in some manner the diesel, petrol etc. vehicles have to be identified by display of sticker”, the Court remarked in its order.

The bench indicated that it may pass an order directing compliance with Rule 50(1)(iv) for older vehicles registered between March 26, 1993 and April 1, 2019 while implementing the HSRP Order for vehicles registered after April 1, 2019.

NEET-SS Vacancies | Take Decisions In 3 Months For Smooth Admissions Next Academic Year: Supreme Court Urges Union Govt

Case Details: Kevin Joy & Ors. v. Government of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 106 of 2023 and other connected matters

The Supreme Court directed the Union to conduct a stakeholder meeting with all States/UTs and Private Medical Colleges in relation to the issue of filling vacancies for NEET- Super Speciality Courses for the coming Academic year. The Union is further expected to resolve the issue within 3 months.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishvanathan, was hearing a batch of petitions arising out of successful candidates dropping out of such courses.

Supreme Court Transfers Petitions Filed Against CCI Probe Into Amazon-Flipkart To Karnataka HC

Case Details: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited

The Supreme Court transferred to the Karnataka High Court multiple writ petitions pending in various High Courts challenging the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) probe into alleged anti-competitive practices by Amazon and Flipkart-associated sellers.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a transfer petition filed by the Competition Commission of India. The bench noted that the subject matter involved in the writ petitions is the same as the petition which is being heard by a single bench of the Karnataka High Court.

The bench ordered that any future petitions filed in relation to the same subject matter will also be transferred to the Karnataka High Court. 

Supreme Court Seeks Data From Union On Tribunal Vacancies, Suggests Circuit Benches For AFT

Case Details: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021

The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to collate and furnish data on the status of appointments and selection process of judicial/technical/accounting/administrative members of Tribunals across the country.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a public interest litigation initiated by the Madras Bar Association, which was listed alongwith a petition raising the issue of vacancies, etc. in the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh.

While the Attorney General for India was asked to furnish "the current status of vacancies in different tribunals and the status and stages of the ongoing selection process, if any", the Court asked Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and other members of the Bar to give suggestions to the AG "for improving the working conditions of Tribunals, including an idea to be explored regarding constituting Circuit Benches so as to provide easy access to justice".

Nithari Killings | Supreme Court Posts CBI's Appeals Against Acquittal Of Surendra Koli For Final Hearing In March

Case Details: State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Koli, Diary No. 15138-2024 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court posted for final hearing the pleas challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli, one of the accused in Noida serial murder cases of 2005-2006 (Nithari Kand). The hearing is expected to take place on March 25, 2025.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, upon hearing Advocate Payoshi Roy (for Koli) who submitted that the "rather shocking" and only evidence in the case is a confessional statement, which was recorded after 60 days of custody and in which Koli said that he was tortured. Highlighting that the custody is ongoing, she prayed that the matter be listed for final disposal in March.

'No Cap Of 10 Yrs Experience On Treasurer Post': Supreme Court Clarifies Order On Women Reservation In Delhi District Bar Associations

Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)

In the pleas seeking reservation for women lawyers in Delhi's bar bodies, the Supreme Court clarified that the cap of 10 years' experience imposed on certain posts directed to be reserved for women lawyers is not applicable to the post of Treasurer (also directed to be so reserved in District Bar Associations).

The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh by Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, who submitted that two interlocutory applications had been filed seeking clarification of the court's order reserving posts for women lawyers in Delhi bar bodies, as certain aspects of the order were being misinterpreted by the Returning Officer.

Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka Congress MLA's Plea To Strike Off Pleadings In BJP Leader's Election Petition

Case Details: TD Rajegowda v. D.N Jeevaraja, SLP(C) No.30486/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed Karnataka Congress MLA TD Rajegowda's challenge to High Court's dismissal of his Order 6 Rule 16 CPC application for striking off pleadings in an election petition filed against him by BJP's DN Jeevaraja.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating, "in view of the specific liberty granted to the petitioner-returned candidate in para 7 of our order dated 27 September, 2024, in terms whereof, he is entitled to raise objection not only against admissibility but also on the relevance of the documents/material/proof relied upon by the election petitioner in support of the allegations contained in para 23 or some subsequent paragraphs in the election petition, we are satisfied that there is no necessity to entertain the subsequent application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC".

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Asaram Bapu In Rape Case For Medical Treatment

Case Details: Ashumal @ Asharam v. State of Gujarat., SLP(Crl) No. 15945/2024

The Supreme Court granted interim bail till March 31 to self-styled godman Asaram Bapu, who is serving a life sentence in a rape case following conviction by a Gujarat court.

The order was passed by a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, which also added a bail condition that Bapu should not meet his followers upon release from the Jodhpur jail where he is serving a sentence in another rape case.

BPSC Paper Leak: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging BPSC Exam, Asks Petitioner To Approach Patna HC

Case Details: Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust v. Bihar Public Service Commission And Ors. Diary No. 717-2025

The Supreme Court (January 7) refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the 70th Combined Competitive Exams (preliminary) conducted by the Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) on grounds of an alleged paper leak. The Court has asked the petitioner to move the Patna High Court under Article 226 Jurisdiction.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishvanathan was hearing a plea seeking the cancellation of the 70th Combined Competitive Exams (preliminary) conducted by the Bihar Public Services Commission (BPSC) on grounds of an alleged paper leak. The petitioner also seeks the constitution of a Board of members to inquire into the BPSC's exam conduct.

'What's The Use Of Creating An Institution If Persons Aren't There?' Supreme Court On Vacancies In Information Commissions

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

While deprecating the continuing prevalence of vacancies in Central/State Information Commissions, the Supreme Court called on the Union and states to furnish data regarding appointments and selection process for the Information Commissions (including proposed timelines) as well as total pendency of cases/appeals before them.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a PIL assailing vacancies in information commissions set up under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, upon hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for the petitioners), who submitted that despite the Court's 2019 judgment in Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors v. Union of India, as well as multiple other orders passed, there has been regress (rather than progress) as regards the vacancies in Central Information Commission (CIC) and several State Information Commissions (SICs).

Datta Peetha Shrine Dispute: Supreme Court Grants 2 Months Time To Karnataka Govt For Decision On Worship Rights Of Hindus & Muslims

Case Details: Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shakhadri v. State Of Karnataka And Ors. | SLP(C) No. 10131/2023

The Supreme Court granted a last opportunity for the State of Karnataka to take a decision on the worship rights at the holy shrine Datta Peetha of Bababudangiri in Chikkamagaluru district, which is worshipped by both Hindu and Muslim communities.

The Court has now granted the last opportunity to the government to come up with its decision within 8 weeks, "failing which the respondent state of Karnataka would be liable to pay costs as would be determined by the Court."

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge to the Karnataka High Court decision, which quashed the State's decision taken in March 2018 to permit only a Mujawar (Muslim Priest) to perform the rituals at the Datta Peeta.

2003 Mumbai Blast Case: Supreme Court Seeks Reports Of Probation Officer & Psychologist Regarding Death Row Convicts

Case Details: Ashrat@Arshad Shafiq Ahmad Ansari v. State of Maharashtra, Crl A No. 776/2012; Fehmida v. State of Maharastra, Crl A. No. 777-78/2012

The Supreme Court called for the records of the probation officers and the psychologists regarding two convicts who are in the death row in the 2003 Mumbai bomb blast case. The Court indicated that it will hear the criminal appeals soon, though no specific date has been given.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta passed the order in the criminal appeals challenging the Bombay High Court's order dated February 10, 2012.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Maneka Gandhi's Plea Challenging Election Of Samajwadi Party's Ram Bhuwal Nishad In 2024 Lok Sabha Polls

Case Details: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rambhual Nishad, C.A. No. 10644/ 2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on senior BJP leader Maneka Gandhi's plea challenging the election of Samajwadi Party MP Ram Bhuwal Nishad from the Sultanpur Lok Sabha constituency. At the same time, it refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Gandhi challenging Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to press two prayers sought therein in the first petition (a civil appeal).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating, "after arguing for some time, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise prayer Nos. 2 and 3 in Civil Appeal no. 10644/2024 which is filed against judgment dated 14 August 2024 of the Allahabad High Court. Ordered accordingly".

S.187 BNSS | Supreme Court Affirms HC Judgment That Police Custody Must Be Within First 40 Days For Offences Punishable Upto 10 Yrs Imprisonment

Case Details: Hyder Ali v. State of Karnataka | SLP(Crl) No. 018063 - / 2024

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.

A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant challenging the High Court's judgment delivered on December 13, 2024.

Mullaperiyar Dam: Supreme Court Seeks Union Govt's Response On Constitution Of National Committee Under Dam Safety Act

Case Details: Mathews J. Nedumpara And Ors. v. Union Of India And Ors., Diary No. 37275/2024

On being apprised that a National Committee on Dam Safety contemplated under the Dam Safety Act, 2021 has not been constituted till date, the Supreme Court called for the Union of India's response to a petition involving the issue of structural safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam (situated in Kerala but operated by Tamil Nadu).

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a writ petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedupmara. The Court sought the assistancece of the Attorney General for India. 

WB Universities' VC Appointments | '17 Names Cleared By Governor', Attorney General Says; Supreme Court Gives 3 Weeks' Time For The Remaining

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

In the matter pertaining to appointment of Vice Chancellors for certain West Bengal Universities, the Supreme Court was informed that the Chancellor (Governor) has cleared the names of 17 VCs.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan adjourned the matter by 3 weeks, in light of Attorney General R Venkataramani's request to grant some more time to the Chancellor (West Bengal Governor) to clear the names of VCs for remaining Universities.

SEBI v. Sahara| Supreme Court Asks SEBI To Examine Sahara Group's Proposed JV Agreement For Versova Land

Case Details: Securities And Exchange Board Of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara And Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 001820 - 001822 / 2017

The Supreme Court directed the Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to examine Sahara Group's Joint Venture Agreement proposed for developing latter's Versova land in Mumbai and file sealed cover response before the Court. The proposed developer for the project is also ordered to deposit Rs.1000 Crores with the Court in 15 days from today.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices MM Sundresh and Bela Trivedi was hearing a batch of contempt petitions against Sahara Group of Companies who were in default violation of the Court's 2012 order.

NEET-PG: Supreme Court Stays Telangana HC Order Shfiting MD Seat From One Medical College To Another

Case Details: Dr. S Sandhya v. Dr. Ganta Sathvika Reddy, SLP(C) No. 717/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the judgment of the High Court of Telangana dated December 20, 2024, whereby the High Court ordered the transfer of a medical seat in a PG Course from one college to another through provisional admission and allowed the Respondent (in the present SLP-PG Student) to appear for the final examination.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih issued notice returnable 3 weeks. The present SLP has been filed by the Kaloji Narayana Rao University Registrar, whose affiliated college (MNR College) the Respondent first got admitted to the M.D. DVL Course and later filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court seeking admission to Medicity College.

'Ready To Apologise, Compensate', Says Telugu Actor Mohan Babu In Case For Assaulting Journalist; Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief

Case Details: Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Telangana and Anr. SLP(Crl) No. 132/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to Telugu actor Mohan Babu by ordering that no coercive actions should be taken by the police against him in the case for assaulting a journalist.

The allegation is that he took a wireless mic from a TV9 journalist correspondent and threw it on him causing grievous injuries.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice returnable 4 weeks in a Special Leave Petition filed by Bahu against the December 23 order of the Telangana High Court denying him anticipatory bail. 

Supreme Court Directs Status Quo On Property Claimed By UP MLA Abbas Ansari But Declared 'Evacuee Property'

Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., MA 61/2025 in SLP(C) No. 25151/2024

In a relief to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, the Supreme Court passed a status quo order in respect of a property he claims ownership of but was dispossessed from in 2023 upon the same being declared “evacuee property”.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order. While dealing Abbas Ansari's plea, Justice Surya Kant expressed concern about the High Court, saying it is one of the High Courts one should be “worried” about.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Union On Virtual Hearing Facilities At Tribunals

Case Details: Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court, WP (Crl.) No. 351/2023 (and connected cases)

In a case involving the issue of virtual access to Court/Tribunal proceedings, the Supreme Court called for a report from the Union Government as to the effective availability of video conferencing facility for lawyers and litigants in Tribunals functioning within its jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order while dealing with a batch of petitions raising the issue of virtual access not being provided across all High Courts and Tribunals in the country. 

Supreme Court Grants Bail To Tihar's Ex-Dy Superintendent In Murder Case Of Inmate In Judicial Custody

Case Details: Narender Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation., Diary No. 45425-2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Deputy Superintendent of Tihar Jail, Narendra Meena, in connection with the allegations of death of under trial prisoner, a 29-year-old gangster Ankit Gujjar, in judicial custody.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal set aside the order of the Delhi High Court denying him bail.

Same-Sex Marriage | Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions To Review Its Judgement Refusing To Recognize Queer Marriages

Case Details: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty and Anr. v. Union of India | RP(C) 1866/2023 and connected cases

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the verdict refusing to recognize queer marriages in the Marriage Equality Case.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Suryakant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Dipankar Datta considered the review petitions in chambers(meaning that there is no open court hearing).

Supreme Court To Determine Whether Advocate On Record Designated As Senior Advocate Has Duty To Notify Clients

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep

The Supreme Court is set to determine whether an Advocate on Record (AoR) has the responsibility of communicating with their client about being designated as a Senior Advocate so that the client can make alternate arrangement to engage another lawyer to file vakalatnama.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report to the court, detailing any specific Rule or practice direction under which alternate arrangement notices are issued by the Court to litigants whose AoR has been designated as a Senior Advocate.

Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report to this court bringing on record, either a specific Rule or a practice direction under which notice is issued to a litigant who is represented by Advocate on Record, who has been designated as a Senior Advocate. The question to be considered is whether the Advocate on Record who has been designated as a Senior Advocate, has any responsibility of communicating to his client to make arrangements. Registry to submit a detailed report on this aspect, list on 20th January”, the Court directed.

Sambhal Masjid Row | Supreme Court Directs No Action On Notices Which Claim Well Near Mosque As Hindu Temple

Case Details: Committee of Management, Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. | SLP(C) No.28500/2024

The Supreme Court restrained Uttar Pradesh authorities from giving effect to any notice issued regarding the well near the Sambhal mosque, including the notices/posters put up by the Sambhal Municipality.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the petition filed by the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee challenging the trial court's order passed on November 19, 2024, directing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit which claimed that the Mughal era structure was built after destroying an ancient temple.

No Tree Cutting In Mumbai's Aarey Colony Without Our Permission: Supreme Court

Case Details: In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019

The Supreme Court directed the Tree Authority of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation not to grant tree felling permission within the Aarey colony area without the court's permission.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar passed the order.

Supreme Court Grants Final Extension For Trial To Conclude In 2011 Illegal Mining Case Against Ex-Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy

Case Details: Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh., MA 2636/2024 in SLP(Crl) No. 7053/2013

The Supreme Court granted a final extension of time for Trial Court to conclude the trial in the 2011 illegal mining case against former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy.

The FIR was lodged against Reddy in 2011, and the case has been pending for more than 13 years despite the October 10, 2022 order of the Supreme Court directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial starting from November 9, 2022, within 6 months without fail.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal has given an extension of 4 months time. The Court specifically added that no further extension of time for trial will be given while disposing of the M.A.

Supreme Court Dismisses Two PILs Challenging Deferment Of Women's Reservation In Lok Sabha & State Assemblies

Case Details: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1181/2023

The Supreme Court dismissed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the implementation of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 and challenging the delimitation clause respectively. The Court orally remarked that there is no question of violation of fundamental rights least Article 14 and therefore, Article 32 jurisdiction will not be entertained.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Exchange Of Currency Defaced By Kashmiri Separatists At RBI Branch; Notes Petitioner Suppressed Facts

Case Details: Satish Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 249/2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking CBI enquiry into the Jammu Regional Branch of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) where defaced Indian currencies worth Rs.30 crores were allegedly exchanged by a separatist group in 2013.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, noting from the respondent-authorities' response that the petitioner was a dismissed employee of the Bank and the said fact was suppressed in the petition. It was clarified that the issues, if required to be adjudicated, shall be gone into in an appropriate case.

Creamy Layer Exclusion From SC/ST Reservation To Be Decided By Executive/Legislature: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea

Case Details: Santosh Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 15/2025

The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking exclusion of the wards/children/dependents of IAS/IPS/IFS/IRS/Class-I officers serving in Madhya Pradesh (or having MP as domicile but serving in other states/UTs) from the scope of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in recruitment/selection/appointment processes.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, permitting the petitioner to withdraw his petition, with liberty to take such steps as permissible in accordance with law. It was observed that the issues raised alongwith the prayer for framing of a policy to exclude 'creamy layer' from SC/ST reservation, fell in the ambit of the executive and the legislature.

Supreme Court Stays GST Showcause Notices Against Online Gaming Companies

Case Details: Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (HQS) and Ors v. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd SLP(C) No. 19366-19369/2023 and connected cases

The Supreme Court stayed the showcause notices issued by GST authorities to online gaming companies and casinos over alleged tax evasion.

A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan passed the interim order while posting the matters on March 18. Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, for the Union, said some show-cause notices were to expire in February.

'Consumer Forum Members Must Be Paid Properly': Supreme Court Asks Centre To Decide On Suggestions For Pay, Increments

Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to examine and take action on suggestions for minimum salaries, annual increment, and payment of arrears to Presidents and Members of State and District Consumer Commissions.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with suo moto petition concerning the equalization of salaries for members of the Consumer Forum with District Judges.

If object of the Consumer Protection Act is to be fulfilled, everybody must be paid properly. Otherwise, the kind of members we will get, the kind of chairpersons we will get…”, Justice Oka remarked.

Supreme Court Stays P&H High Court's Direction For Verandah Construction At HC After Chandigarh Admin's Concerns Over UNESCO Heritage Status

Case Details: Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana And Ors.

The Supreme Court stayed the interim order dated November 29, 2024, in which direction was passed against the Chandigarh Administration to begin the construction of a Verandah outside the Court 1 of the Chief Justice's Court of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Chandigarh Administration challenged the order of the High Court through a Special Leave Petition which was heard by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Give Preference To Default Bail Application Filed On Same Day As Application To Extend Time For Investigation

Case Details: Mohammed Jabir v. National Investigation Agency., SLP(Crl) No. 11581/2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition, wherein the accused person had challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court denying him statutory bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). By the said order, the High Court affirmed the trial court's deciison to give precedence to the investigation agency's application for extension of time to investigate over the accused's application seeking default bail when both applications were filed on the same day.

In the SLP, the issue before the Court was: whether default bail application filed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could take precedence over an application for an extension of time to file a chargesheet under Section 43D(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) if both are filed on same day.

A bench of Justices M.M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal clarified that when the bail application and the application requesting for extension of time for further investigation are filed, the Court will have to consider both together.

Ukraine MBBS: Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Relief For Students Who Returned From Ukraine Before Final Year

Case Details: National Medical Forum v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union of India to clarify whether relief measures have been extended to students who were pursuing medical education in Ukraine and had to return to India before their final year due to the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 2022.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan opined that steps mentioned in the Union's compliance affidavit for medical students who returned from Ukraine appeared to assist only final-year students, and sought to know on whether any measures have been extended to students who returned before reaching their final year of the MBBS course.

Supreme Court Expresses Shock At Trial Court In Gujarat Imposing Only 3 Years Sentence For Rape

Case Details:

The Supreme Court expressed its surprise at noting that a trial court awarded only a punishment of three years imprisonment for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, although the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence was seven years imprisonment (before the 2013 amendment).

The Court was also aghast to note that the Gujarat High Court did not take notice of this fact while rejecting the convict's appeal against the conviction and the State's appeal to enhance the sentence.

Although the High Court was conscious of the error made by the trial court, it did not do anything to remedy it, the Supreme Court said.

Other Developments

Farmers Say Dallewal Would Take Medical Aid If Centre Is Ready For Talks: Punjab AG Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha, Diary No. 61011-2024

The Supreme Court on December 31) granted more time to the Punjab Government to comply with the directions on giving medical aid to farmers' protest leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia posted the contempt petition filed against the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP to January 2, 2024, for further hearing.

Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh informed the vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia that intervenors and negotiators had gone to the protest site. Efforts for compliance were made by mobilizing about 7000 personnel at the protest site, the AG said. However, he added that due to the Punjab Bandh held yesterday by farmers' organisations, there were traffic blockades and hindrances. He further informed the bench about the protesters' proposal that Dallewal would take medical aid if the Centre was ready to talk to them.

Farmers Protest | 'Your Attitude Is There Should Be No Reconciliation': Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab Govt For Not Shifting Dallewal To Hospital

Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 930-933/2024

The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the Punjab Government for not shifting farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike, to hospital in terms of the earlier directions.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that shifting Dallewal to hospital does not mean that he should break his fast and that he can continue his hunger strike under medical aid. The bench reprimanded the Punjab Government, saying that its attitude was against reconciliation, and stressed that the State must impress upon Dallewal that he can continue his fast under medical support.

Justice Kant expressed unhappiness that the Court's intentions were misinterpreted as a direction to stop Dallewal's hunger strike and blamed the media and the State officials for spreading the wrong impression.

The Supreme Court also heard a petition filed by Guninder Kaur Gill seeking the Court's intervention in the larger issues raised in the ongoing farmers' protest, including seeking a statutory guarantee of Minimum Support Price. During the hearing, the Court orally asked the Union Government why it could not express readiness to consider the genuine grievances.

Places Of Worship Act| MP Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Seeking To Restrain Courts From Passing Hasty Orders In Mandir-Masjid Suits

Case Details: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 846/2024

Member of Parliament and President of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Asaduddin Owaisi has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, seeking to enforce the Places of Worship Act 1991. The petition also seeks general directions to all Courts on the procedure to be followed before entertaining suits raising claims over religious sites and passing survey orders thereon.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar tagged the PIL with another pending batch of petitions relating to the challenge/implementation of the Act, which will be heard on February 17.

Bar Council Of India Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Enhancement Of Enrolment Fees To Rs.25,000

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Gaurav Kumar and Ors., MA 2253/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 352/2023 PIL-W

The Bar Council of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking directions to enhance the enrolment fee, which is presently capped at Rs 750 by virtue of a judgment, to Rs 25,000.

The application has been filed in the case Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court, by its judgment in July 2024, held that the Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fee beyond what is prescribed under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Through the present application, the BCI sought directions to the Union Government to take steps to amend the Advocates Act to increase the fee.

Expressing surprise at the nature of the application, the Court sought the assistance of Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani on this issue.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Challenge To Acquittal Of Ram Rahim Singh In 2002 Ranjit Singh Murder Case

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Baba Singh Diary No. 48506-2024

The Supreme Court issued notice in the SLP filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court's order acquitting Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder of manager Ranjit Singh.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the matter and tagged it with another pending appeal filed by the complainant who has also challenged the acquittal.

'Why Can't Govt Of India Adhere To Timelines?': Supreme Court Calls For Introspection By Authorities On Delay In Filing Petitions

Case Details: National Highway Authority of India v. Ivrcl Chengapalli Tollways Ltd and Ors | Diary No. 46628-2024

The Supreme Court expressed the need for Central Government authorities like the NHAI to introspect on the reasons for the excessive delays in filing appeals.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against the order of the NCLAT which refused to entertain its appeal in an IBC-related dispute due to limitation.

Taking a serious view of the delay by the NHAI in taking an appropriate course of legal action, the CJI stressed on the need for the Government Authority to introspect into its administrative workings.

" I think everyone is adhering to the time schedule in almost 95% of cases, why should the Govt. of India not be able to adhere to it? There is something wrong somewhere, a delay of 295 days! ....there is some introspection which needs to be done."

The bench accordingly dismissed the matter, observing that the same was barred by limitation. Sr Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the respondents.

Trial Cannot Be Routinely Transferred Outside State Solely Due To Involvement Of Political Personality: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court orally observed that trial of criminal cases cannot be routinely transferred to another state solely on the ground that a political party is involved.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti's plea to transfer a cheating case filed against him by Jila Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, to another state

Justice Oka remarked during the hearing, “No ground to transfer it outside the state. See, if we start practice of transferring trial on the ground that political personality is involved it would lead to disastrous effect. As if no judicial officer is independent in that state.”

Plea Filed Seeking Vacation Of Supreme Court's Stay On Registration Of New Suits & Passing Survey Orders Over Mandir-Masjid Disputes

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 (and connected matters)

Applications have been filed before the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the stay on registration of fresh suits against places of worship as well as surveys of the religious sites in pending mandir-masjid suits.

It may be recalled that on December 12, the Supreme Court ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from it. It was further directed that in pending suits (such as those concerning Gyanvapi mosque, Mathura Shahi Idgah, Sambhal Jama Masjid etc.), courts should not pass effective interim or final orders, including orders for survey.

The interim order was passed by a special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan while hearing a batch of petitions relating to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 Act, which prohibits the conversion of religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947. While some petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Act, some others sought its strict implementation.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna Recuses From Hearing Pleas Relating To Indian Olympic Association & All India Football Federation

Case Details: Indian Olympic Association v. Union of India and Ors. SLP(C) No. 14533/2022 and Connected matters.

Chief Justice of India, Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused from hearing a batch of pleas relating to the proposals of draft constitutions of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and All India Football Federation (AIFF). The CJI cited that he had earlier heard one of the matters as a High Court Judge in Delhi.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the pleas by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and All India Football Federation (AIFF) relating to the proposed reforms in the sports associations.

'Even While Dissenting, One Must Be Respectful': Supreme Court While Hearing RJD MLC's Plea Against Expulsion Over Remark On Nitish Kumar

Case Details: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024

During the hearing of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MLC Sunil Singh's plea against his expulsion from Bihar legislative council for allegedly using defamatory words against State's Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court cautioned that "even while dissenting, one must be disrespectful".

The matter was before a bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

Supreme Court To Hear West Bengal Govt's Plea Against Cancellations Of OBC Classifications On January 28 & 29

Case Details: State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Amal Chandra Das Diary No. – 27287/2024

The Supreme Court posted the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the decision of the Calcutta High Court to quash the Other Backward Class (OBC) classification of 77 communities to January 28 & 29 for the final hearing.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih considered the matter. When Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State of West Bengal, requested a decision before the commencement of the next academic year, Justice Gavai assured that the matter would be decided before the Court closes for summer vacations in May.

Karnataka Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Bail Granted To Actor Darshan In Renukaswamy Murder Case

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Darshan Diary no. 956/2025

The Karnataka State Government has filed a plea before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court granting bail to actor Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and other co-accused in the Renukaswamy Murder Case.

NEET PG | 'Won't Order Fresh Counselling': Supreme Court On Plea For Answer Keys & Question Papers Of NEET-PG 2024 Exam

Case Details: Ishika Jain And Ors. v. National Board Of Examination And Ors. W.P.(C) No. 583/2024

The Supreme Court is set to hear a writ petition seeking measures to ensure increased transparency in NEET-PG Exams, including publication of answer keys.

Before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde made an urgent mention on Tuesday in respect of the third round of counselling in the NEET-PG exam and sought that the matter be heard soon.

Justice Gavai stated the Court won't be able to hear the matter that day. He said: "Just ask someone to mention the matter tomorrow. If counselling is over, we will dispose of the matter. It's not like we will order fresh counselling."

SC Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Patna HC CJ Vinod Chandran To Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Justice K Vinod Chandran, the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfers Of Chief Justices Of Bombay & Telangana High Courts

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court.

The Collegium also recommended the transfer of Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, to the Bombay High Court.

Supreme Court To Hear Petitions Challenging Upper-Age Limit In Surrogacy Laws On February 11

Case Details: Arun Muthuvel v. Union Of India And Ors.,W.P.(C) No. 756/2022 and others

The Supreme Court is set to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022 on the specific issue of upper-age limited and cases where the surrogacy process has already commenced for interim relief.

Under the 2021 Act, the age prescribed for the woman is 23 to 50 years and the age prescribed for the man is 26 to 55 years. The Union of India has been asked to file their written submissions.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order after hearing the issues briefly. 

Can CBI Probe Into Fraud In Company When SFIO Investigation Is Pending? Supreme Court Reserves Judgement

Case Details: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijayraj Surana SLP(Crl) No. 9381/2024

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the issue of whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can conduct investigation with respect to fraud in a company when the Serious Fraud Investigating Officer (SFIO) is already investigating the matter.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge by CBI against the order of the Karnataka High Court which quashed two cases registered against Vijayraj Surana, Promoter Director of Surana Power Limited, registered under S. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

'In Reality, Clinical Trials Conducted In Poorer Countries': Supreme Court In PIL Against Multinational Pharma Companies

Case Details: Swasthya Adhikar Manch, Indore and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 33/2012

In a PIL raising the issue of multinational pharmaceutical companies picking up poor people in India as "guinea pigs" for clinical drug trials, the Union informed the Supreme Court that the Drugs and Clinical Trial Rules, 2019 substantially address the concerns of the petitioners and the matter has become infructuous.

The matter was before a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti which, in view of Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh's (for petitioners) request for time to file submissions regarding the developments by way of notification of the 2019 Rules, listed the matter after 4 weeks.

Should Judges Have Fixed Pension & Uniform Pay Conditions Across All States? Should NPS Apply? Supreme Court Hears Issue

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. Union of India., W.P.(C) No. 643/2015

The Supreme Court orally remarked that the Court's hands are not tied if the judiciary is not provided with adequate infrastructure and service conditions including salary and pensionary benefits.

Normally we would not issue any writ that you provide us with this budget or that budget which is within the domain of the executive. But suppose if the executive totally neglects in providing infrastructure to the judiciary, should we tie our hands and sit back? Normally we don't enter into the domain of the legislature or the executive but the in the circumstances which warrants the court to [do otherwise], it would always be justified in invoking Article 142” this observation was made in the context of the Court exercising Article 142 powers.

At the outset, the Court clarified: “We are restricting our scope of enquiry only to two aspects: whether as a unified judiciary, there has to be same paying conditions for all levels of judges in all the States and secondly, to ensure the independence of the judiciary is maintained, whether fixed pension is necessary or not...

IAS Officers Receive Emails Faking SC ID; Supreme Court Registry Cautions Public About Fake Sites Impersonating Official Website

The Supreme Court of India issued a public notice warning public against fake websites impersonating as the official website of the Court. As the attackers are seeking personal details, it has been cautioned that public persons should not share confidential/financial information at the sites, as the Supreme Court never asks for such information.

Reportedly, the Registry of the Court has taken note of the phishing attack and flagged the same to law enforcement agencies to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Krishna Janmabhoomi -Shahi Idgah Dispute | Supreme Court Expresses Reluctance To Interfere With Consolidation Of Suits

Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6388/2024

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's order to consolidate all suits relating to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanan and Justice Sanjay Kumar orally observed that the consolidation would be in the benefit of both sides. However, the bench did not pass any order and adjourned the matter.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Congress MLA Chanda Gaur's Plea Against MP HC's Refusal To Dismiss Election Petition Filed By BJP MP Rahul Lodhi

Case Details: Chanda Singh Gaur v. Rahul Singh Lodhi, SLP(C) No. 29490/2024

The Supreme Court issued notice on Congress MLA Chanda Singh Gaur's petition challenging Madhya Pradesh High Court's rejection of her plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to dismiss an election petition filed by BJP MP Rahul Singh Lodhi.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni (for Lodhi), and directed that in the meantime, proceedings in the election petition shall be deferred.

Law Students Approach Supreme Court Against BCI Directions For Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, CCTV Surveillance

Case Details: Prakruthi Jain v. Bar Council Of India, Diary No.47760/2024 (and connected case)

The Supreme Court issued notice on two public interest litigations filed against two circulars issued by Bar Council of India in September, 2024, which mandated that criminal background check, declaration of simultaneous degree or employment and compliance with attendance norms before enrolling of candidates for legal education or practice.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Bar Council of India on the petition filed by Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, final year law students of the NALSAR University, who appeared as parties-in-person.

Amicus Curiae Submits Suggestions To Supreme Court On Effective Disbursal Of MACT Compensation; HCs Give Data On Unclaimed Funds

Case Details: In Re Compensation Amounts Deposited With Motor Accident Claims Tribunals And Labour Courts

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora submitted her suggestions to the Supreme Court to ensure compensation from Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and labour courts reaches beneficiaries.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing a suo moto case concerning substantial amounts of compensation remaining unclaimed in Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and Labour Courts across India.

Tags:    

Similar News