Split Verdicts Given By Supreme Court In 2025

Reports/JudgmentsTahir Hussain's Interim Bail : Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict, Referred To Larger BenchCase Title: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2025 pronounced a split verdict on the petition filed by Delhi riots case accused Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail to campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections.While Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed Hussain interim bail. In view of the divergence, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India either to refer the matter to a third judge or a larger bench.The Court was dealing with Hussain's Special Leave Petition challenging the Delhi High Court's order which refused him interim bail and granted only a custody parole to file nomination to contest from the Mustafabad constituency to the Delhi Legislative Assembly.Justice Mithal in his order observed that the right to contest in elections is not a fundamental right. Also, the right to contest the elections has been protected by the High Court's order granting custody parole to file nominations. Justice Mithal observed that allowing interim bail on this ground can open a "Pandora's box" as every undertrial would take this ground.Release on interim bail for canvassing will amount to allowing the accused to go for door-to-door canvassing and hold meetings in the locality where the crime took place and witnesses reside, he said, opining that there is a high possibility of the accused meeting the witnesses.The chargesheet reveals serious allegations against the accused and that the rooftop of his house/office was used as the "epicentre" for the offences, he noted.Justice Amanullah, while acknowledging that the allegations are grave and serious, stated that they remain as only allegations at the present moment.On the short point of the period undergone under custody (five years) and the fact that bail has been granted in other cases, he held that interim bail can be granted till February 4, 2024, subject to the conditions in Section 482 and 484 of BNSS 2023.Subsequently, a three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted custody parole to Hussain to canvass votes in the Mustafabad constituency as a candidate of the AIMIM in elections to the Delhi legislative assembly.Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Guilt Of Ex-TN Minister's Wife In Whose Name Disproportionate Assets Were RegisteredCase Title: P. Nallammal v. StateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 545The Supreme Court on May 7, 2025 delivered a split verdict on the culpability of P. Nallammal, the wife of former Tamil Nadu Minister, for her alleged role in abetting her husband in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).A.M. Paramasivam, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and state minister during the 1991–1996 term, was accused of accumulating wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. His wife P. Nallammal was implicated for allegedly abetting this offence by holding benami properties in her name and their children's names.Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld P. Nallammal's conviction, while Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah acquitted her.Justice Dhulia observed that she had actively participated in acquiring properties in her name during her husband's ministerial tenure, fully aware that his lawful income could not support such purchases. Her inability to establish an independent source of income, he held, justified her conviction under Section 109 of the IPC for abetting her husband's offence. In support, he relied on P. Nallammal & Anr. v. State (1999) 6 SCC 559, where it was held that non-public servants can abet corruption offences.Justice Amanullah set aside the conviction, stating that the prosecution failed to establish mens rea on appellant's part, as mere registration of assets in Nallammal's name does not prove she knew the funds were illicit. Disagreeing with Justice Dhulia's opinion, Justice Amanullah stated the Court cannot ignore human realities, particularly typical conduct in marital relationships. He added that while criminal law allows certain presumptions, they cannot replace actual evidence. Therefore, presuming a relative's guilt solely because assets are in their name risks unfairly shifting the burden of proof and undermining the presumption of innocence beyond what the law permits, he said.In view of the divergent opinion, the bench directed the Registry to place the relevant papers of the appeal before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Time Limit For Assessments Under S.144CCase Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 783The Supreme Court on August 8, 2025 delivered a split verdict on the interpretation...

Split Verdicts Given By Supreme Court In 2025

Amisha Shrivastava