Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: August 2025

Reports/JudgmentsSupreme Court Refuses To Accept School Record, Relies On Statutory Documents To Reject Juvenility Plea Of Murder AccusedCause Title: Suresh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761The Supreme Court (Aug. 1) overturned an accused's juvenile status, after finding that he was not a juvenile at the time of the commission of the crime.The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeal filed by the complainant, where both the Trial Court and the High Court had treated Respondent No. 2 (the accused) as a juvenile for a crime committed in 2012, solely on the basis of private school records indicating his year of birth as 1995. These records, the Court noted, were based only on the oral declaration of the accused's father at the time of admission.Crucially, the Courts below had overlooked more credible public documents, including the Family Register and the Voter List, both of which consistently recorded the year of birth as 1991, making the accused an adult at the time of the offence.Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition Requiring Husband To Resume Conjugal Life With Wife & Maintain Her With DignityCause Title: Anil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 762The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition that the accused shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife.The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih called out the imposition of such a condition not traceable to Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.“The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation.”, the court said.Employer Has Duty To Reasonably Accommodate Employee Who Acquires Disability During Service : Supreme CourtCause Title: Ch. Joseph v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation & OtherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 763The Supreme Court (Aug. 1) reiterated that an employee who acquires a disability during service must be protected by an employer by providing suitable alternate employment, unless no such post exists in their organization.Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar granted relief to a bus driver employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), who was prematurely terminated from service after acquiring colour blindness, without any attempt by the employer to identify or offer him an alternative employment.The Court set aside the High Court's decision, which justified the APRTC's action to terminate the Appellant from employment without making any sincere attempt to identify or offer him an alternative post, despite its obligation to do so.Supreme Court Doubts View That 'No-Fault' Liability u/s163A Motor Vehicles Act Is Only For Third Party Risks; Refers To Larger BenchCause Title: Wakia Afrin (Minor) v. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 764The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether the families of vehicle owners who die in self-accidents can be allowed compensation under the "no-fault liability" provision(Section 163A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MVA”), or whether such claims are limited solely to third-party liability.Although the Court expressed the view that legal heirs of vehicle owners who die in an accident can seek compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as part of the no-fault liability scheme, it noted the existence of conflicting precedents that limit the application of this principle to third-party claims only. As a result, the Court referred the issue to a larger bench for authoritative ruling.“We are of the opinion that this issue concerning the liability of the insurer in a claim under Section 163A qua the owner/insured requires an authoritative pronouncement. The dictum arising from the various decisions of different benches of two Judges is that the claim under Section 163A is restricted to third party risks, which, with all the respect at our command, we are unable to agree with.”, the court said.Promise To Marriage & Subsequent Relationship Based On Consent Won't Amount To Rape : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO CaseCause Title: Kunal Chatterjee v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765Reiterating that a consensual relationship based on a promise to marriage will not amount to the offence of rape, the Supreme Court quashed a case under the POCSO ACt against a man."This Court has held in several decisions that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape and the reasons therein have been assigned (See: Prithivirajan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 696, Pramod Suryabhan...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: August 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags