- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Round-up:...
Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: January 2025
Amisha Shrivastava
5 Feb 2025 1:10 PM IST
Nominal IndexCitationsM/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....
Nominal Index
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. 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. 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. 2025 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
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 15016-15017 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58
Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 59
State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61
State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62
M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 63
Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 64
Union of India v. Phani Bhusan Kundu & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 65
Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 66
Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 13083/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Deepak Aggarwal v. Balwan Singh & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 68
Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors. v. Narayan Nayak & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 69
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 70
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72
Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 73
Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2018 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 75
State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 76
Indian Overseas Bank v. M.A.S Subramanian & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 77
State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, SLP(Crl) No. 17026/2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 78
U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 79
Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl.A No.221/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2013 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 81
Balbir Singh & Anr Etc v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83
Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84
Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others., Civil Appeal No.183 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 87
Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 88
Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 89
Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 91
General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank v. B S N Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 92
State of Punjab & Ors v. M/S Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 93
Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented By Inspector of Police 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94
M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 95
Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97
S. Jayalakshmi v. The Special District Revenue Officer & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98
Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 99
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100
State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1675 of 2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103
Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja v. State of Punjab | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 104
M/S Vidyawati Construction Company v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105
Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106
Ravi Kant and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 266/2009 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 107
Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 108
State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190/2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 109
Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 110
Surendra G. Shankar & Anr v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 111
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 112
Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 113
Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd. Shad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1059/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 114
Somdatt Builders –NCC – NEC(JV) v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115
Venkatesha & Ors. v. State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 116
M. Venkateswaran v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 117
Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra| Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 119
Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand | SLP(Crl) 8777/2022 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 120
Mahabir and others v. State of Haryana 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121
Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others | C.A. No. 9289/2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 122
H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 123
Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2220-2221 of 2022 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 124
S Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 125
Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126
Vinobhai v. State of Kerala 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 127
M/S. JM Laboratories and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 128
Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., Civil Appeal No(S). 4806 of 2011 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 129
All India Judicial Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 643/2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
Vellore Dist. Environment Montng. Committee Rep By Its Secretary Mr R. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | SLP(C) No. 23633-23634/2010 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 131
S. Vishnu Ganga & Ors. v. M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 132
Karuppudayar v. State 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 133
Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand., Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
Karan Singh v. State of Haryana., Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 135
Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 138
Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. – 1995/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 140
Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Parimal Kumar and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 142
Anas V v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 823/2024
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
Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION of INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021
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
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
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
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
In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra) Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 2 of 2019
Gali Janardhan Reddy v. 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
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.
Shailender Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025
Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET. (C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 530/2024
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Sukhpal Singh Khaira, SLP(Crl) No. 8985/2022
Anu Shanthi v. State of Kerala
Asha Lawrence and Anr. v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) 897/2025
Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao v. State ACB CIU Hyderabad and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 422/2025
Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 357/2025
Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
Guddan@Usha v. Sanjay Chudhary, SLP(C) No. 771/2025
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 120/2012
Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl) No. 17476/2024
Rajiv Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP(Crl) No. 6066/2020
Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
MV Global Emerald v. Meck Petroleum DMCC & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20990/2024
State of Telangana v. S. Satyanarana & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30706-30708/2024
Rahul Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., Diary No. 36772-2024
Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024
Mirza Abid Beg v. State of UP & Ors.
Anju Devi v. State of Karnataka and Ors., Diary No. 59653-2024
G Priyadharshni v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 21/2025
Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda
Kerala Pravasi Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016
Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021
Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
Bar Council of India v. Poonam Ashok Goud| Diary No. - 54008/2023
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan., SLP (Crl) No. 516-522/2025
Kavitha. H.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1910/2025 (and connected cases)
Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 4190-2025
Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. – 1995/2025
Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Mekala Thirupathanna v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 14658/2024
Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 1895/2025
Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. R. Varalakshmi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 1027-1028/2025
State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey & Anr.
Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 4190-2025
Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 25/2025
B Jagannath v. State of Tamil Nadu| W.P.(C) No. 1001/2023
Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 526/2024
In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India | SMW(C) No. 10/2024
Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., MA 2346/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 162/2023
Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025
Sufiya PM v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024
Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1404/2025
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep
Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
Mahatab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey Sarkar, SLP(Crl.) No. 1003/2025
V Venu and others v. St.Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024
Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla I.A.S. (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.
The Corporation of The City of Panaji v. Mushtak Hussain Khatib | SLP (C) No. 030051 - 030053 / 2024
Union of India and Ors. v. Sgt Rohitash Kumar Sharma (Retd)
Rupesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12058/2024
Rajyashree Chhokar v. Manish Chhokar
Haji Mangrolisha S House v. D.D. Jadeja and Ors., Diary No. 50311-2024
Vijay Kishor Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 700/2024
Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024
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 favour 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 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 dishonour 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:
- 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.
- 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. 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 non-compoundable 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 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 been 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.
The Supreme Court highlighted the need to clearly state the intent behind a judgment within the judgment itself. The Court clarified that not every judgment is meant to be a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Therefore, the judgment needs to specify whether the decision is intended to resolve a specific dispute between the parties or to establish a precedent under Article 141.
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.
The Supreme Court noted that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are essentially civil in nature and should not be equated with criminal proceedings merely because they involve a penal consequence.
“even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings.”, the bench remarked.
Convict Given Benefit Of Probation Won't Suffer Any Disqualification Due To Conviction: Supreme Court
Case Details: Amit Singh v. 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: 2025 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."
Motor Accident Claim | Third Party Insurance Policy Effective From Date & Time Specified In Policy Document: Supreme Court
Case Details: National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 15016-15017 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 58
While dismissing an insurance company's appeal against a motor accident compensation award, the Supreme Court reiterated that merely alleging fraud as regards obtaining of an insurance policy is not enough. Rather, it has to be proved by the insurance company by adducing evidence. The Court further observed that policy coverage commences from the time and date specified in the policy document.
"The Insurance Company has not been able to prove that it had not received the money/premium prior to the accident and the only stand taken was that the insurance was fraudulently obtained. The law is very clear – fraud vitiates everything, but merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it. For, it has to be proven in accordance with law by adducing evidence etcetera, the onus of which would also lie on the person alleging fraud", stated a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Specific Relief Act | Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) For Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage Of Litigation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The Supreme Court observed that while seeking a part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims regarding the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation, including the Appellate Stage.
“we may only say that the relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation. This was held in Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1954 SC 165. This Court referred with approval to a Division Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in Waryam Singh v. Gopi Chand, (AIR 1930 Lah 34).”, the Court said.
As per Section 12(3) of the SRA, to claim part performance of the contract, the plaintiff either needs to relinquish the claims associated with the unperformed part of the contract or express readiness and willingness to perform the contract by making full payment of the agreed consideration for the contract.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Madras High Court's decision where the Appellant for the first time raised the plea regarding the relinquishment of claims for the remaining part of the contract at the Appellate stage before the High Court.
The Court ruled that part performance of the contract under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial and non-segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part or damages nor shows readiness to perform the contract.
'Prosecutrix's Testimony Doesn't Inspire Confidence': Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal In Rape Case
Case Details: State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 60
The Supreme Court observed that in rape cases if a conviction is based on the sole evidence of a single witness, even that of the victim herself, such evidence should inspire confidence in the Court. The Court agreed that while the victim's statement is given a very high value, the Court must carefully examine the same.
“Although it is absolutely true that in the case of rape, conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as her evidence is in the nature of an injured witness which is given a very high value by the Courts. But nevertheless when a person can be convicted on the testimony of a single witness the Courts are bound to be very careful in examining such a witness and thus the testimony of such a witness must inspire confidence of the Court.,” observed the Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court enunciated the principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
While dismissing the appeal against the conviction in a rape-murder case, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta summarised the principles as follows :
(i)The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked.
(ii)Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated.
(iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
(iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.
(v)The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.
PC Act | Whether Sanction Granted By Competent Authority Matter Of Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Which Invoked S.482 CrPC To Quash Trial
Case Details: State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62
The question whether sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) was granted by a competent authority is a matter of evidence, observed the Supreme Court, while setting aside an order of the High Court which quashed the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court also reiterated that a sanction order cannot be quashed on the ground of incompetence of the authority to grant sanction unless it is found that failure of justice has occurred due to the irregularity in granting sanction.
A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the sanction order and the trial proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
No Strict Rule That Money Claim Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction; Non-Payment Of Admitted Dues Arbitrary: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 63
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not a stringent rule that the High Court cannot decide a money claim under its writ jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that non-payment of admitted dues by the State authorities may be considered an arbitrary action and thus a writ petition may lie against the same.
The Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, inter-alia, placed reliance on the judgment of M/S Surya Constructions v. State of UP., and opined:
“Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.”
NDPS Act |'Taxi Driver Not Expected To Give Passenger Details': Supreme Court Acquits Driver Of Taxi From Which Contraband Was Seized
Case Details: Sri Shankar Dongarisaheb Bhosale v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 64
The Supreme Court acquitted a taxi driver who was implicated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), solely for failing to provide details of passengers who had carried contraband in his taxi.
The Court held that a taxi driver's inability to provide details of passengers carrying contraband could not justify implicating or convicting him under the NDPS Act, as it is unreasonable to expect drivers to know such details.
“The Courts below have convicted the appellant solely for the reason that the appellant was not able to give details of the passengers. Ordinarily, since it is not disputed that the appellant was a taxi driver and that the contraband was seized from the taxi while he was carrying two passengers who fled from the scene, it cannot be said with any certainty that the appellant himself was carrying the contraband or has connived to carry the said contraband in his vehicle. It was not expected of any taxi driver to give details of the passengers, as ordinarily, no taxi driver/owner before allowing the passenger to board the taxi ask for such details from the passenger(s). Moreover, no effort was made to search out the two passengers who may reveal the truth.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the Appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court's decision affirming the trial court's decision convicting the appellant for carrying and possessing 20 Kgs 'ganja' and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to deposit a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh).
State Govt Employee Who Worked On Deputation In Central Govt Dept Not Entitled To Pension As Per CCS Rules: Supreme Court
Case Details: Union of India v. Phani Bhusan Kundu & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 65
The Supreme Court held that the service rendered by a state government employee on a deputation basis in a central government's department would not entitle him to pension as per Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS Pension Rules”).
The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar allowed the Union of India's appeal, overturning the Calcutta High Court's decision, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order directing that the respondent employee's pension be calculated based on the central pay scale.
S.113B Evidence Act | Dowry Death Can't Be Presumed Without Clear Evidence Of Incessant Harassment: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 66
The Supreme Court, while acquitting an accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide, observed that to apply Section 113B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Indian Evidence Act, clear evidence for incessant harassment is essential. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stressed that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot straightaway invoke this provision.
Bail In Marital Disputes Can't Be Conditional On Payment Of Maintenance: Supreme Court
Case Details: Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 13083/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 67
In a case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the Supreme Court set aside a bail condition making the husband's anticipatory bail subject to payment of maintenance to the wife.
"When application for bail is filed, the Court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face Trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not therefore be warranted", observed a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti.
Supreme Court Advises Caution While Granting Ad-Interim Anticipatory Bail
Case Details: Deepak Aggarwal v. Balwan Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 68
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Courts must exercise caution when granting interim protection to the accused while deciding anticipatory bail pleas.
While holding so, the Court expressed disapproval of the High Court's decision to grant the accused the liberty to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and to order their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer.
“There is no point in asking the accused to go before the investigating officer pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court and further saying that in the event of arrest he shall be released on ad-interim bail. Such ad-interim reliefs have their own legal implications.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which allowed the accused to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and directed their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer.
Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Declaratory Relief When Plaintiff's Title Isn't Disputed By Defendant: Supreme Court
Case Details: Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors. v. Narayan Nayak & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 69
The Supreme Court observed that a suit filed only for injunction simpliciter cannot be dismissed solely because it lacks a declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), especially when the defendants do not dispute the plaintiffs' title.
“The law is well settled that if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case arising out of the Orissa High Court's decision where the High Court in a second appeal reversed the trial court's order and held that the plaintiff's injunction simpliciter suit without seeking declaratory relief under Section 34 SRA would not be maintainable.
TN Societies Registration Act | Prior District Registrar's Approval & Identical Objectives Of Societies Not Mandatory For Amalgamation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 70
The Supreme Court observed that under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 ("Act"), it is not required for the amalgamating societies to obtain prior approval from the District Registrar before passing a special resolution, nor is it necessary for the societies to have identical objectives for the amalgamation.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the SLP challenging the Madras High Court's decision, which upheld the Inspector General of Registration's order rejecting the amalgamation of societies on the grounds of lacking prior District Registrar approval and having divergent objectives.
Promotion As District Judges Under Merit-cum-Seniority Quota Can't Be Denied To Suitable Candidates Based On Merit List: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 71
Granting relief to judicial officers of the Jharkhand Judiciary who were denied promotion despite meeting the minimum marks required in the suitability test for the merit-cum-seniority quota, the Supreme Court reiterated that the merit-cum-seniority quota is not a competitive process. Instead, it evaluates individual suitability and prioritizes promotions based on seniority once the minimum eligibility criteria are fulfilled, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma was hearing the plea where the appellants-Judicial Officers fulfilled the benchmark criteria for promotion as District Judges based on merit-cum-seniority quota of 65%. They received more than 40 marks (passing marks) in the suitability test conducted for promotion based on merit-cum-seniority.
Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Toilet Facilities In Court Premises For Women, Disabled & Transgender Persons
Case Details: Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 538/2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 72
The Supreme Court issued a set of directions for the construction of toilet facilities especially for women, specially-abled persons and transgender persons in Court premises and tribunals across the country.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan pronounced the judgment in a writ petition filed by Rajeeb Kalita in 2023.
"We have given enough number directions for the construction and maintenance of toilets and all other facilities for women, physically disabled persons, transgender persons, etc. The State Governments and of toilets and Union Territories shall allocate sufficient funds for the construction, maintenance and cleanliness of toilet facilities within the court premises, which shall be periodically reviewed in consultation with a committee constituted by the High Courts. A status report shall be filed by all the States, UTs and High Courts within a period of four months," Justice Mahadevan said while reading out the operative part.
The Supreme Court held that toilet facilities are not merely a matter of convenience, but a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. This Article encompasses a right to a safe and hygienic environment.
The Supreme Court noted that the same would protect privacy and remove threats to ladies and transgender persons.
Order II Rule 2 CPC Bar Won't Apply When Reliefs In Second Suit Are Based On A Cause Of Action Different From First Suit: Supreme Court
Case Details: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd v. M/S Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 73
The Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent suit filed on a different cause of action would not be subject to the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The Court justified the filing of a subsequent suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, following the institution of an earlier suit seeking a permanent injunction, noting that both suits were based on distinct causes of action.
Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that a plaintiff include the whole claim he is entitled to, arising from the same cause of action, in a single suit. The rule seeks to prevent the splitting of claims and multiplicity of suits based on the same cause of action. However, the Court said that the Rule would not be applicable when the subsequent suit was filed on a different cause of action than that of the cause of action for the first suit.
The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where an agreement to sell was entered between Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff-Buyer) and Respondent No.2 (Defendant-Seller) in respect of the immovable property. Disputes arose when Respondent No. 2 executed another sale deed for the same property in favour of the appellant in 2008.
The Supreme Court noted that while Order II Rule 2 of the CPC mandates including the entire claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit, it should not be misconstrued to require combining all different causes of action stemming from the same transaction into a single suit.
The Supreme Court observed that when the plaintiff couldn't seek the required relief in the first suit, Order II Rule 2 CPC would not bar him from seeking such relief made available to him by happening of an event, by filing a subsequent suit.
Private Defence Must Be Strictly Preventive, Not Punitive Or Retributive In Nature: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ratheeshkumar @ Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2018
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 74
The Supreme Court observed that private defence must be strictly preventive and not punitive or retributive. The Court reiterated that causing death can only be justified when the accused is faced with a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The impending danger must be present, real or apparent., the Court said.
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan were deciding a criminal appeal against the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder. To provide a brief factual background, the appellant owned his own agricultural farm. The deceased was trying to put up a fence in some part of his land and the same was objected to by the appellant's father.
S. 141 NI Act | Resigned Director Not Liable For Cheque Issued By Company After His Resignation: Supreme Court
Case Details: Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 75
The Supreme Court observed that the cheque issued after the retirement of the director of the company would not trigger his liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1882 (“NI Act”).
“Once the facts are plain and clear that when the cheques were issued by the Company, the appellant (director) had already resigned and was not a director in the Company and was not connected with the company, he cannot be held responsible for the affairs of the Company in view of the provisions as contained in Section 141 of the NI Act.”, the Court said.
The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the appeal filed against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's refusal to quash the cheque dishonour case against the Appellant, who had resigned from the company's directorship before the issuance of cheque by the company towards a legally existing debt.
When Accused Acted With Common Intention, Punishment Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Injury Inflicted Individually Wasn't Severe: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Battegowda & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 76
The Supreme Court noted that the severity of injuries caused by individuals acting with common intention cannot justify reducing a harsher punishment to a lighter one.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the State of Karnataka's appeal challenging the High Court's decision to modify the conviction of Accused No. 2 from Section 326 IPC (voluntary causing grievous hurt by deadly weapons) to Section 324 IPC (voluntary causing hurt by deadly weapon), solely based on the fact that the injuries inflicted by him were less severe than those caused by the co-accused.
Agreement For Sale Doesn't Transfer Title Or Create Interest In Property: Supreme Court
Case Details: Indian Overseas Bank v. M.A.S Subramanian & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 77
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that mere possession of a property under an agreement to sell does not confer ownership unless a sale deed is duly registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
“It is well settled that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property. The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.”, the court observed.
Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Govt To Bring Out Prison Manual In Accordance With 2016 Model Prison Manual
Case Details: State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath, SLP(Crl) No. 17026/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 78
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the State of Jharkhand for the transfer of a prisoner from one jail in Jharkhand to another on grounds that the prisoner was involved in a gang war and there was apprehensive about the right to life.
The Court also directed the Jharkhand Government to bring a Jail Manual incorporating the provisions of the Model Prison Manual 2016.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court dated August 21, 2023, wherein the High Court had set aside the order passed by the I.G. Prison, Jharkhand, for the transfer of the Respondent from Lok Narayan Jai Prakash Narayan Central jail, Hazaribagh to Central Jail Dumka.
S. 100 CPC | High Courts Cannot Pass Interim Order In Second Appeal Without Framing Substantial Question Of Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: U. Sudheera & Others v. C. Yashoda & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 79
Observing that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot proceed without framing substantial questions of law, the Supreme Court set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which granted an interim relief in the plaintiff's favour without framing a 'substantial question of law'.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing an appeal on the question whether the High Court could pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing the substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100 CPC.
Answering negatively, the Court observed:
“Concededly, in the present case, the High Court, without formulating substantial questions of law, granted the interim relief by directing the parties to maintain status quo, till the next date of hearing. The said interim order was also subsequently extended. It is also pertinent to point out that all the respondents in the second appeal have not been served and notice was unserved qua Respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 therein. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court could not have passed the interim order without satisfying itself of the existence of a substantial question of law, as mandated under Section 100 CPC.”
'Abetment Of Suicide' Offence Can't Be Invoked Only To Assuage Feelings Of Family; High Time To Sensitise Police: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Crl.A No.221/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 80
The Supreme Court reminded investigating agencies and trial courts not to mechanically invoke the offence of abetment of suicide (Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code/Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
"Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police," the Court said.
The Court stated that the provision (S.306IPC/S.108 read with 45 BNS) cannot be invoked merely to pacify the sentiments of the family of the person who died by suicide. The interactions between the accused and the deceased must be seen from a practical point of view and hyperbolic exchanges should not be exaggerated as incitement to suicide.
The Court observed that the time has come to sensitise the investigating agencies about the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. The Court also urged the trial courts to not mechanically frame charges, adopting a "play safe" approach, when the investigation has not disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offence.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice KV Viswanathan made these important observations while discharging a bank manager of the offence of Section 306 IPC.
Bodily Injuries Not Necessary To Prove Sexual Assault; Victims Respond To Trauma In Different Ways: Supreme Court
Case Details: Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2013
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 81
The Supreme Court reiterated that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault. It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries., the Court said. Elaborating, the Court explained that victims react to trauma in different ways and it is not just to expect a uniform reaction.
"We must caution that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and neither it is important to raise a hue or cry."
“Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. The stigma associated with sexual assault often creates significant barriers for women, making it difficult for them to disclose the incident to others.”
The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti were deciding an appeal against the appellant's conviction under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (induces any minor girl to go from any place with the intent of illicit intercourse).
Higher Court's Order Becomes Final, Trial Court's Order Gets Merged With It: Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of Merger
Case Details: Balbir Singh & Anr Etc v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Observing that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time, the Supreme Court explained the effect of merging the trial court's decree with that of the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeals.
The doctrine speaks that once the superior court disposes of a case, whether by setting aside, modifying, or confirming the lower court's decree, the superior court's order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, merging the lower court's decision into it.
The Supreme Court observed that a suit for specific performance does not conclude after the passing of a decree and that the court retains its control even after the decree is passed.
The bench also said that the court's power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary. For reference, this provision provides that after a specific performance has been decreed in a suit and the plaintiff fails to pay the purchase money within the stipulated time, the court may rescind the contract after receiving an application for the same.
“A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains the control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. The decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree. The power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it. Although the power to annul the decree exists yet Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree. The court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed.”
Police Arresting Accused After Filing Chargesheet Makes No Sense: Supreme Court
Case Details: Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of police arresting an accused, who was not arrested during investigation after the Court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet.
When the Court was informed that such a practice was being followed by the Uttar Pradesh police, it expressed surprise, terming the practice "unusual" . The Court said that such a practice does not make any sense.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed :
"The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense."
Mere Breach Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Fatal To Trial If Contraband Recovery Otherwise Proved: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84
Highlighting that substantive justice outweighs procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for possessing contraband, rejecting his plea for acquittal based on alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
The Court observed that mere non-compliance with Section 52A would not be fatal to the prosecution's case when other cogent evidence proves the recovery of the contraband from the accused possession.
“Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.”, the Court observed.
“If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.”, the court added.
The Supreme Court summarized the principles regarding Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) emphasizing its purpose of ensuring both the safe disposal of seized contraband and introducing procedural safeguards to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the accused challenged its conviction over non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
'Punjab Officials Stooped So Low': Supreme Court Finds Disciplinary Punishment Against Doctor Vengeful, Sets Aside Penalty
Case Details: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others., Civil Appeal No.183 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court granted relief to a retired Senior Medical Officer who was in service of the Punjab Government, by setting aside the order of penalty imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding.
The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance against the appellant for having dragged high officials of the Government of Punjab to the High Court to obtain his legitimate monetary dues.
“This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law," observed the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Oil Marketing Companies For Inter-Supply Of Petroleum Products
Case Details: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 86
In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature.
The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik for the demand of Rs. 119,11,49,418/-(Rupees one hundred nineteen crores, eleven lakhs, forty-nine thousand, four hundred and eighteen only) as differential duty from the BPCL.
Serious Doubt About NGT's Jurisdiction To Direct Prosecution Under PMLA: Supreme Court
Case Details: Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court expressed doubt over the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) jurisdiction to direct prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
“There is a serious doubt about the jurisdiction of the NGT to direct prosecution of an individual under the PMLA. However, we are not going into this question, as the direction contained in paragraph 230 will have to be even otherwise set aside”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and set aside NGT's direction to initiate proceedings under PMLA against a company in a case concerning environmental pollution in Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh emphasizing that proceedings under the PMLA cannot be initiated in the absence of a registered scheduled offence.
Asking Son's Lover To End Life If She Can't Live Without Him Not Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Mother
Case Details: Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 88
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the offence of abetment to suicide against a woman for asking her son's lover to end her life if she could not live without him.
The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the case arising out of the Calcutta High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR under Sections 306 r/w 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Appellant.
Setting aside the High Court's decision to the extent that the charges against the Appellant herein were upheld by the High Court, the Court observed that the acts of the Appellant refusing his son's marriage with the deceased, and thereupon asking to end her life if she was not able to live without him are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC
The Court explained that when Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
Though Notice On Petition Was Issued On Limited Point, Court Can Later Hear Other Points: Supreme Court
Case Details: Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 89
The Supreme Court ruled that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues. If the petitioner highlights substantial legal questions or glaring errors, such as procedural lapses or flawed findings in the lower court's judgment, the Bench may examine those issues beyond the notice's initial scope.
The Court observed as follows:
“Justice could be a real casualty if the same or the subsequent Bench, in all situations of limited notice having been issued initially, is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions relatable to points not referred to in the notice issuing order. As it is, since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals/petitions are not frequently issued by this Court. Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points. In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order. However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. If this position is not accepted, Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 of the Constitution will lose much of its significance.” a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan said.
In Disproportionate Assets Cases, Income Tax Returns Presumed To Be Accurate; Must Consider Inflation & Dynamic Factors: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 90
In a noteworthy ruling, the Supreme Court underscored that income tax returns filed by public servants in cases of alleged disproportionate assets should be presumed accurate and credible unless specifically contested or proven false.
Quashing a disproportionate assets case against the former UP's Assistant Excise Commissioner, the Court called for a dynamic and nuanced approach while calculating assets/income over extended periods. It said that factors like inflation and natural appreciation of property values must be considered, particularly when reviewing decades-long finances.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale was hearing the case where the Appellant, a former Assistant Excise Commissioner, challenged an FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that he had amassed disproportionate assets worth ₹21.74 lakh beyond his known sources of income from 1996 to 2020.
'Article 14 Doesn't Envisage Negative Equality': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Based On Illegal Promotion Given To Others
Case Details: Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 91
The Supreme Court ruled that irregular promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegality.
While holding so, the Court dismissed the appeal of a retired peon who sought promotion to the position of Tracer based on the fact that other employees had been promoted to this position, even though the recruitment rules specified that the Tracer role should be filled through direct recruitment rather than promotion from lower-level positions.
The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the case arising out of Orissa High Court's decision where the Appellant, a retired peon sought promotion to the post of Tracer based on the previous illegal promotion of her counterparts.
'Bank Officers Expected To Maintain Higher Standards Of Honesty': Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Of Staff For Bank Fraud
Case Details: General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank v. B S N Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 92
While deciding an appeal pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against a bank manager, the Supreme Court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate the person in disciplinary proceedings. The Court reasoned that the standard of proof differs in both of these scenarios.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih also stressed that "bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct". It also referred to its decision in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal Jain., (2005) 10 SCC 84. Therein, the Court observed that every bank employee should take all possible steps to protect the bank's interests and discharge his duties with the utmost integrity.
Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules | State Can Levy Royalty On Brick Earth: Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab & Ors v. M/S Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court observed that as per the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the State Government is entitled to levy royalty on the mining of brick earth.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan were deciding an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the High Court's ruling. In the impugned judgment, the Court had ruled that merely declaring brick earth as a minor mineral does not entitle the State Government to levy royalty. It further held that the appellants failed to prove that they were owners of brick earth. Thus, they are not entitled to collect any royalty.
When 'Sudden & Grave Provocation' Reduces Murder To Culpable Homicide? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94
The Supreme Court observed that not every sudden provocation would reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For reference, exception 1 to Section 300 (murder) of IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder when the accused is deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased person.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan explained that to invoke this exception, there must be a simultaneous reaction of the grave as well as a sudden provocation.
“If the provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the benefit of this exception. Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception where the provocation though sudden is not grave.,” the Court said.
MSMED Act | Is Writ Maintainable Against MSEFC Award? Can MSEFC Members Act As Arbitrators ? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Case Details: M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 95
The Supreme Court opined that the party aggrieved by an order/award of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) passed under Section 18 of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”) can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
However, upon noting that a contrary view was expressed in the previous ruling delivered by a coordinate bench in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, the bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manmohan referred the question of “Whether the ratio in M/s India Glycols Limited (supra) that a writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court?” to the larger bench for consideration.
Banks Giving Loans Without Proper Title Search Reports: Supreme Court Flags Issue To RBI; Says Officials Who Approved Loan Be Made Liable
Case Details: Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of comprehensive title search reports in preventing legal disputes and ensuring smooth property transactions.
The Court emphasized the need for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other stakeholders to develop a standardized and practical framework for preparing title search reports before loan sanctioning by banks. The Court said that the framework should also include the determination of liability of the erring bank official who sanctioned the loan based on a faulty title search report.
“we deem it necessary to observe that Banks should remain very careful with inadequate title clearance reports, more particularly, when such reports are obtained cheaply and at times for external reasons. This concerns the protection of public money and is in the larger public interest. Therefore, it is essential for the Reserve Bank of India and other stakeholders to collaborate in developing a standardized and practical approach for preparing title search report before sanctioning loans and also for the purpose of determining liability (including potential criminal action) of the Officer who approves loan. Additionally, there should be standard guidelines for fees and costs associated with title search reports so as to ensure that they maintain high quality.”, the Court said.
Until now, there's no standard mechanism developed by the RBI that regulated the title search report before loan sanctioning by banks. The banks rely on the title search report prepared by the empanelled lawyers, and there's no standardization of title search report preparation.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan highlighted the need to develop such a standard framework in the wake of an instance where the bank-sanctioned loan based on the disputed mortgaged property, later discovered to have title disputes.
The Supreme Court observed that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid.
According to the Court, the plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”, the Court observed.
The Supreme Court noted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is not authorized under the SARFAESI Act to "hand over" possession of the secured asset to an individual who was neither the borrower nor the possessor of the asset. It further stated that the DRT lacks the authority to "restore" possession of secured assets to an individual who is neither the borrower nor in possession of the assets.
The Court clarified that a plea for the handover or restoration of a secured asset by an individual, who is neither a borrower nor in possession of the asset, is maintainable before the civil court.
Village Police Patil Not Police Officer; Confession To Him Admissible As Extra Judicial Confession: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97
The Supreme Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is a “weak type” of evidence and thus requires a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance., the Court said while placing its reliance upon Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 4 SCC 259.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated thus while overturning a judgment of the Bombay High Court reversing the acquittal of the present appellant/ accused for the offence of murder. To summarise, the prosecution alleged that the deceased was married to the appellant and their marital life was not very happy. One day all of a sudden, the deceased went missing. Her body was recovered from the house.
Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: S. Jayalakshmi v. The Special District Revenue Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award land acquisition compensation @ ₹495/sq.m, the Appellant preferred application before the District Court under Section 34, which had modified the award and enhanced the compensation to be payable @ ₹4,500/sq.m with 9% interest.
S. 69 Partnership Act |Partner Of Unregistered Firm Can't File Suit For Recovery Against Other Partners: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 99
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a partner of an unregistered firm cannot enforce a contractual right against another partner. The Court reasoned that the restriction arises from the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (“Act”), which prohibits the maintainability of suits between unregistered partners of a partnership firm.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 69 of the Act applies even before the partnership firm's business commences. However, filing suits for the dissolution of the firm, rendition of accounts, or realization of the property of a dissolved firm remains permissible, even if the firm is unregistered.
“It is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 that it assumes a mandatory character. Section 69(1) prohibits a suit amongst the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, for the enforcement of a right either arising from a contract or conferred by the Act, unless the suit amongst the partners is in the nature of dissolution of the partnership firm and/or rendition of accounts. Section 69(2) prohibits the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm against third persons for the enforcement of a right arising from a contract. As a consequence, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm and all proceedings arising thereunder, which fall within the ambit of Section 69 would be without jurisdiction.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case arising out of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to dismiss the Civil Revision preferred by the Petitioners against the order of the trial court dismissing the Petitioner's recovery suit against the partner of the same unregistered firm.
NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Contraband Was Seized From 'Conscious Possession' Of Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100
The Supreme Court reiterated that to prove offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the prosecution must establish that the contraband was seized from the 'conscious possession' of the accused.
"Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness," the Court explained.
"Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature," the Court stated.
The Court further added that the burden of proof will shift to the accused as per Section 54 of the NDPS Act only when the conscious possession is proved.
"It is the burden of the prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily."
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made these observations while considering an appeal filed by a convict who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for carrying poppy husk in train.
Deoghar Airport Case: Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of Jharkhand FIR Against BJP MPs, Asks Aircraft Act Authority To Decide On Filing Complaint
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand against the Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and other persons related to the 2022 Deoghar Airport incident.
The Court however granted liberty to the State of Jharkhand to forward the materials collected by them during investigation to the authorised officer under the Aircraft Act, 1934 within four weeks and such officer was directed to take a decision in accordance with law as to whether a complaint needs to be filed under the Aircraft Act.
NDPS Act | Bald Allegation Of S. 52A Non-Compliance Won't Result In Acquittal Unless Foundational Facts Of Non-Compliance Proved: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
The Supreme Court reiterated that unless the foundational facts of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act are not proved by the accused, he cannot assert a bald allegation that the conviction for possessing contraband cannot be sustained due to non-compliance of Section 52A.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the accused was booked for possessing contraband and sought acquittal due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
The Court doubted the Appellant's case because the investigating officer detailed the recovery process and sealing of the contraband in compliance with Section 52A which was not questioned by the appellant during cross-examination of the prosecution witness that there was no compliance with Section 52A.
Testimony Of Witness Shouldn't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Relation With Victim: Supreme Court
Case Details: Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1675 of 2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103
The Supreme Court (on January 22) observed that being a victim's close relative does not automatically make a witness “interested” or biased. Distinguishing between an interested witness and a relative witness, the Court said:
“The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim.”
Taking a cue from this observation, it opined that the courts must assess the consistency of these witnesses' statements before declaring them untrustworthy.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale were deciding on a criminal appeal, preferred by the present accused / appellant against murder conviction. As per the allegations, the accused had animosity with the deceased due to a property dispute. This led to an attack on the deceased and he succumbed to his injuries.
Supreme Court Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost On Petitioner Over Repeated Bail Applications, Asks Police To Arrest Him
Case Details: Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja v. State of Punjab | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 104
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rupees Two Lakhs on a petitioner who intended "to take undue advantage of procedural law" after he withdrew his anticipatory bail application twice before the High Court before moving the Apex Court.
The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Arvind Kumar was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail. The bench noted that before the High Court the accused had withdrawn his application on September 30, 2024 on seeing the disinclination of the High Court in granting anticipatory bail.
Subsequently, in another application filed by the accused, the High Court took a stringent view. It noted that despite the FIR being registered against the accused on June 25, 2023, no action had been taken for more than a year against the accused. The High Court further directed the police to file a status report of the investigation by the next hearing. When the matter was listed again, the petitioner withdrew the application again.
S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Vidyawati Construction Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
Tahir Hussain's Interim Bail: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict, Referred To Larger Bench
Case Details: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court 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.
Supreme Court Disposes Of 2009 PIL Against Mayawati Statues, Asks All Parties To Follow ECI Directions On Use Of Public Funds
Case Details: Ravi Kant and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 266/2009
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 107
The Supreme Court on January 15 disposed of a 2009 Public Interest Litigation which was filed against the construction of statues of Former UP Chief Minister Mayawati, her mentor Kanshi Ram and elephants - her party Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)'s symbol - at parks in Lucknow and Noida with taxpayers' money when she was chief minister between 2007 and 2012.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the petition in light of the subsequent developments including the instructions by the Election Commission of India (ECI) against the use of public money to propagate party symbols.
In the order uploaded yesterday, the Court directed that all parties must follow the ECI directions.
"it is necessary to observe that the instructions issued by ECI on 07.10.2016 or its modified or substituted version referred to above shall be complied with not only by respondent No.2 but all political parties in the country," the Court observed.
'Attempt To Transform Civil Dispute Into Criminal Matter', Supreme Court Quashes Workplace Harassment Case
Case Details: Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 108
The Supreme Court on January 24 quashed a workplace harassment case filed by a female employee against her colleagues, observing that the allegations arose from employment disputes that had been exaggerated into a criminal matter.
The Court noted that the proceedings against the appellants were a deliberate “attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurizing the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant.”
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the case where the complainant alleged that the appellants had forcibly demanded her resignation under the threat of dismissal, confiscated her belongings, and physically and verbally harassed her. She also claimed that her intellectual property stored on the company's laptop was unlawfully seized.
While Dismissing State's Appeal, Supreme Court Notes Accused Was Assaulted In Custody; Orders Action Against Police Officials
Case Details: State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190/2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 109
While dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court noted that the accused was subjected to custodial torture.
Affirming his acquittal in a murder case, the Court directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate to hold an inquiry into the incident of custodial violence against the accused and initiate appropriate proceedings following the law against the erring officials.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent accused in a murder case. The High Court overturned the conviction noting that the prosecution failed to prove the last-seen theory on which its entire case rested.
While considering the case, the Supreme Court noticed the High Court's finding that the accused had broken his leg while he was under custody. The High Court also recorded the doctor's statement that the injury was not due to any fall but due to assault by use of heavy objects. In this background, the Court order enquiry.
Maharashtra Stamp Act | Limitation Period For Refund Starts From Execution Of Cancellation Deed, Not Its Registration: Supreme Court
Case Details: Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 110
Observing that the right to claim a refund of stamp duty originates from the date of execution of the cancellation deed, the Supreme Court directed the refund of stamp duty to flat owners whose claim had been rejected on limitation grounds.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the case relating to the refund of the stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Dissatisfied with the developer's delay in completing the project, the Appellants cancelled the booking and executed a cancellation deed on March 17, 2015, registered on April 28, 2015.
When Scope Of Appeal Is Limited To Delay Condonation, Merits Of Matter Can't Be Considered: Supreme Court
Case Details: Surendra G. Shankar & Anr v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 111
The Supreme Court observed that when the scope of an appeal before the High Court is limited to condonation of delay, it should not touch upon the merits of a matter. Elaborating, the Court said that once the delay is condoned, the case's merits can be examined by the appellate tribunal.
“This we say so because the scope of the appeal before the High Court was limited to examining the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai declining condonation of delay. Only when the delay is condoned, the merits of the order could be examined by the Appellate Court.”
The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Manoj Misra, at the outset, pointed out that the High Court should not have commented upon the merits of the orders. It also pointed out that even the Appellate Tribunal had not touched upon the merits. Thus, under these circumstances, the High Court should not have gone into the merits.
Police Shouldn't Serve S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notice Through WhatsApp Or Electronic Means: Supreme Court
Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 112
The Supreme Court has directed that police should not serve notice for appearance to the accused/suspect as per Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) through WhatsApp or other electronic modes.
The Court made it amply clear that the service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.
The Court also directed that notices under Section 160 of CrPC/Section 179 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 175 of CrPC/Section 195 of BNSS to the accused persons or otherwise can be issued only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC/BNSS.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed these directions in the Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI case in which it had issued directions to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ease the grant of bail to deserving undertrial prisoners. The Court had been posting this matter from time to time to monitor the compliance of the States and High Courts with the directions.
Supreme Court Bench Split On Plea Of Christian Man To Bury Father In Native Village; Directs Burial In Another Village
Case Details: Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 113
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the plea of a Christian man from Chhattisgarh to bury the dead body of his father, a pastor, either in the burial ground of their native village Chindwara or in their private agricultural land.
While Justice BV Nagarathna allowed the appellant to bury his father in his private property, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the burial could be held only at the area designated for Christians, which is at Karkapal village (about 20-25 kilometres away from the appellant's native place).
Despite the disagreement, the bench refrained from referring the dispute to a larger bench, since the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7. Instead, the bench chose to pass a consensual direction that the burial be held at the designated place for Christians.
Justice Nagarathna in her opinion observed that as no place has been marked for the Christian community by the gram panchayat, the only alternative that the appellant has is to use his private land. Such a plea is reasonable. Justice Sharma held that as per the Chhattisgarh Panchayat rules, burial can be permitted only at the designated places. Hence, a person cannot claim a blanket right to bury the body at a place of his choice.
'Expected Of High Court To Muster Courage': Supreme Court Criticises Allahabad HC Over Denial Of Bail In Conversion Case
Case Details: Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @ Mohd. Shad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1059/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 114
The Supreme Court castigated the Allahabad High Court for not showing the "courage" to grant bail in a case for unlawful religious conversion. The Court went to the extent of saying that the refusal to grant bail in a case like the present one gave the impression that "altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail."
It further questioned the High Courts for failing to exercise its discretionary power to grant bail in less serious offence where the allegations are yet to be substantiated by conclusive evidence.
“We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously," the bench observed.
The Court stressed that when the offence alleged is not that grave like murder, dacoity, rape, etc. then the bail applications should not ideally travel up to the Supreme Court.
The observations were made by the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan while hearing a bail plea of a Maulvi who was arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 over allegations of performing forceful religious conversion of a mentally challenged minor.
Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach: Supreme Court
Case Details: Somdatt Builders –NCC – NEC(JV) v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose concerning increased quantities of geogrid required for constructing a reinforced earth (RE) wall as part of a road construction project. NHAI claimed that increased quantities beyond those stated in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) warranted renegotiation of rates.
In Cases Without Test Identification, Witness Identifying Accused For First Time During Trial After Many Years Raises Doubts: Supreme Court
Case Details: Venkatesha & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 116
The Supreme Court acquitted an individual accused of kidnapping a girl because the prosecution failed to conduct the test identification parade (“TIP”).
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing the case where no TIP was conducted and the witness had identified the accused for the first time after a substantial gap of eight years.
Groom Refuses To Cooperate With Wedding Reception Over Gold Demand; Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under S.498A & Dowry Law
Case Details: M. Venkateswaran v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 117
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act who refused to cooperate with the wedding reception function since the bride's family did not accept his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry.
The case arose from a marriage which lasted only for three days.
After the engagement ceremony held in 2006, the bridegroom and his family insisted that they would cooperate with the wedding reception only if 100 sovereigns of gold were given. The family of the appellant did not allow the bride's brother to perform the customary practices on the marriage day. Though they participated in the reception, the appellant's father took the bridegroom with him from the reception dais. Before the marriage reception concluded, the appellant went out from the reception dais and stood on the left side. The appellant refused to come up on the dais in spite of the bride's relatives pleading with him. The appellant, at that point, told the relatives that after 100 sovereigns were presented, they could speak. The photographer also deposed that the appellant's family did not cooperate even for taking wedding photos.
The Court observed that the ingredients of the offence were made out.
"We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW- 4 (wife) to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out," the Court observed.
Husband Presumed To Be Father Of Child Born During Marriage Even If Wife Had Relations With Another Man: Supreme Court
Case Details: Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a child's legitimacy determines paternity, emphasizing that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of parents who had access to each other at the time of conception.
The Court dismissed the argument that legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts requiring separate determination. It held that legitimacy and paternity are inherently intertwined, as the legitimacy of a child directly establishes paternity. The Court clarified that if it is proven that the married couple had access to each other at the time of the child's conception, the child is deemed legitimate, thereby establishing the paternity of the couple.
“The language of the provision (S. 112 of Evidence Act) makes it abundantly clear that there exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. This section provides that conclusive proof of legitimacy is equivalent to paternity. The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the parentage of a child. Since the presumption is in favour of legitimacy, the burden is cast upon the person who asserts 'illegitimacy' to prove it only through 'non-access.'”, the Court said.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a case where the Respondent and his mother claimed the Appellant to be his biological father, despite the Respondent being born during his mother's marriage to another person (RK). The Respondent filed a civil suit seeking a paternity declaration, but it was dismissed, upholding the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in favor of RK.
Also from the judgment - Child's Right To Know Father Must Be Balanced With Other Person's Right To Privacy; Can't Force DNA Test On Mere Adultery Allegations: Supreme Court
Family Court Cannot Entertain Paternity Claim From Extra-Marital Affair: Supreme Court
'Gaping Holes In Prosecution': Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Sentenced To Death For Rape & Murder
Case Details: Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra| Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 119
The Supreme Court today(January 28) set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the Appellant by the Trial Court for the rape and murder of a 23 years old woman which took place in 2014.
The Court acquitted the Appellant of all charges on the ground that when the prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence to draw home the guilty, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; which is a cardinal principle of criminal law as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). In this case, the prosecution failed to do so.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan held that the facts cumulatively lead to the conclusion that there are "gaping holes" in the prosecution's story.
Supreme Court Asks Union To Consider Bringing Law To Protect Domestic Workers' Rights
Case Details: Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand | SLP(Crl) 8777/2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 120
The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to consider the enactment of a law to protect the rights of domestic workers.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Ministry of Labour & Employment and the related Ministries to constitute an expert committee to look into the feasibility of such a law on domestic workers and submit a report within six weeks. After the report of the committee is received, the Union Government should make efforts to bring a law to uphold the dignity and safety of the domestic workers.
The bench observed that though domestic workers are an essential workforce, there was no pan-India legislation to protect their rights. Therefore, they are vulnerable to exploitation by employers and agencies.
Govt Pleaders & Prosecutors Must Be Appointed On Merit; Not On Political Considerations Or Nepotism: Supreme Court
Case Details: Mahabir and others v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 121
The Supreme Court bemoaned the trend of Governments appointing Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors in High Courts on political considerations. The Court said that "favouritism and nepotism" should not be factors while appointing Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed :
"This judgement is a message to all the State Governments that the AGPs and APPs in respective High Courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person. The State Government owes a duty to ascertain the ability of the person; how proficient the person is in law, his overall background, his integrity etc."
The Supreme Court asked the State of Haryana to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs each to three accused who were illegally sentenced in a murder case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal of appellants and convicted them of murder. Although the State had not filed any appeal against the acquittal by the trial court, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition. Despite the High Court having no power to reverse an acquittal in revisional jurisdiction, it did so.
Residence-Based Reservation In PG Medical Courses Impermissible, Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
Case Details: Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and others | C.A. No. 9289/2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 122
The Supreme Court held that domicile-based reservations in PG Medical seats is impermissible as it is unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," pronounced a bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti.
The bench held that providing for domicile residence-based reservations in admission in PG medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally impermissible.
The Court held that State quota seats are to be filled up on the basis of merit in the NEET exam. Answering a reference, the three-judge bench stated that it was reiterating the law laid down in the previous judgments in Pradeep Jain, Saurabh Chandra cases.
Also from the judgment - All Indians Have Only One Domicile- 'Domicile Of India'; No State Or Provincial Domicile In Our Legal System: Supreme Court
Transferee Pendente Lite Not Entitled To Get Impleaded In Suit As A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court Summarises Principles
Case Details: H. Anjanappa & Ors. v. A. Prabhakar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 123
The Supreme Court ruled that a pendente lite transferee(someone who purchases a suit property during the pendency of the litigation) has no automatic right to be impleaded in a suit. It said only in exceptional cases, where the transferee's rights are adversely affected or jeopardized, a leave would be granted to the pendente lite transferee (who wasn't impleaded in the suit) to appeal against the decree.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan summarised the principles. The Supreme Court also discussed the circumstances under which a third party to a suit can seek leave to appeal against the decree.
Capital Punishment An Exception; Even In Cases Of Multiple Murders, Avoid Death Sentence If There's Possibility Of Reform: Supreme Court
Case Details: Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2220-2221 of 2022
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 124
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for murdering his wife and four minor daughters but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, citing a lack of criminal antecedents, prison reports indicating reform potential, and precedents against the death penalty in multiple-murder cases.
The Court added that even in cases involving multiple murders, no death sentence could be imposed if the convicts display a reform potential supported by other mitigating factors such as age, lack of criminal antecedents, income, etc.
"this Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.", the court observed.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the case in which the appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and four minor daughters based on circumstantial evidence and was sentenced to death, a verdict later upheld by the High Court.
Art. 226 | Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against NBFC; Private Company's Banking Business Not 'Public Function': Supreme Court
Case Details: S Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 125
The Supreme Court stated that an entity being subject to regulatory guidelines under a statute does not automatically make it subject to Writ Jurisdiction. Instead, Writ Jurisdiction applies only when it can be demonstrated that the entity is performing a public duty or function concerning its responsibilities.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan summed up the principles regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition.
IBC | For Resolution Plan Involving Combination, Prior Approval Of Competition Commission Mandatory Before CoC Examination: Supreme Court
Case Details: Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6071 of 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 126
The Supreme Court by 2:1 majority, observed that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, containing a proposed combination(a merger or amalgamation of entities), should only be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC), after it has been approved by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
In this regard, the Court referred to Section 31(4) proviso of the IBC. This proviso talks about the approval of the resolution plan and its proviso reads as:
“Provided that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the committee of creditors.”
Taking a cue from this, the Court pointed out that the use of 'prior' makes it clear that the legislature's intent was to create an exception.
“For a Resolution Plan containing a combination, the CCI's approval to the Resolution Plan, in our opinion, must be obtained before and consequently, the CoC's examination and approval should be only after the CCI's decision. This interpretation respects the original legislative intent, and deviation from the same would not only undermine the statute but would also erode the faith posed by the stakeholders in the integrity of our legal and regulatory framework.,” the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
However, Justice SVN Bhatti disagreed, saying that the condition for prior approval from the CCI was not mandatory.
"it is held that the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 31 is directory and would be compliant with IBC and the Competition Act. Hence, the combination approval of CCI at the stage of consideration of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31(1) would be proper and legal. Such interpretation keeps the operations of the successful resolution applicant as a going concern, without deviating from the rigour of the Competition Act, and simultaneously, a one-year window is granted to obtain licenses, permissions, consents and other regulatory approvals envisaged by a host of laws. Therefore, the proviso is interpreted purposively and held that the approval of a combination of CCI at the stage of consideration by CoC is directory and not mandatory," Justice Bhatti held.
The Supreme Court also held that a Resolution Professional is obligated to ensure that a resolution plan placed before the Committee of Creditors is legally compliant.
It was opined that when a resolution plan containing a combination that leads to an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) is placed before CoC for approval without prior approval from CCI, it is incapable of being enforced. As such, a Resolution Professional should place only those resolution plans before CoC which comply with the 'provisions of the law for the time being in force'.
S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vinobhai v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 127
The Supreme Court stated that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act unaccompanied by the supporting evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the conviction cannot be solely based on the disclosure statement because it is considered a weak piece of evidence.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted the accused convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC, noting that aside from the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the weapon, no supporting evidence was presented to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Magistrate's Summoning Order Must Reflect Reasons: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: M/S. JM Laboratories and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 128
The Supreme Court quashed a non-speaking summoning order issued by a Judicial Magistrate against a drug manufacturer, reiterating that a summoning order cannot be issued without recording valid reasons.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing the appeal filed by drug manufacturers assailing the correctness of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision refusing to quash the summoning order issued against them in connection with the case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, “DC Act”) after a declaration by the government analyst that one of their drug samples namely MOXIGOLD-CV 625 was “Not of Standard Quality”.
After Split Verdict, Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench Rejects Challenge To Appointment Of Shiksha Karmis In Madhya Pradesh
Case Details: Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., Civil Appeal No(S). 4806 of 2011
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court while deciding a case pertaining to the appointment of Shiksha Karmis, opined that bias cannot be inferred if members, who were alleged to be close relatives of appointees, did not participate in the interview.
“In a scenario such as this where the members did not participate in the interview, a reasonable likelihood of bias in our opinion cannot reasonably be inferred. While it is true that actual bias need not be proved, this appears to be a case of allegation of bias without any foundational footing.,” the Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti opined while deciding the case referred to it due to the pronouncement of a split verdict.
Judicial Officers' Pay: Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Form Committees For Service Conditions Of District Judiciary Within 4 Weeks
Case Details: All India Judicial Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 643/2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 130
The Supreme Court urged all High Courts to ensure the constitution of the "Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary" (CSCDJ) in terms of the directions issued in the All India Judges Association case in January 2024 to deal with the grievances of judicial officers regarding the implementation of the Second National Judges Pay Commission (SNJPC).
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction after being informed by Senior Advocate K Paremeshwar, the amicus curiae in the All-India Judges Association case, that many High Courts are yet to constitute the CSCDJs. Even in many High Courts where the Committees have been formed, they are not holding regular meetings, the amicus said, resulting in many judicial officers filing applications in the Supreme Court raising their individual grievances. Also, in many High Courts, nodal officers have not been appointed for the CSCDJs.
The Supreme Court urged the High Court judges to record the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of judicial officers promptly so that they do not lose opportunities of promotion. The Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to frame rules regarding the increase of posts of District Judges in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale categories. The Court reiterated that judicial officers, who have got the benefit of Annual Career Progression (ACP), are also entitled to the additional increment due to the acquisition of a higher qualification.
'Tanneries Caused Irreversible Damage': Supreme Court Passes Directions On Pollution In TN's Vellore, Asks Polluters To Compensate
Case Details: Vellore Dist. Environment Montng. Committee Rep By Its Secretary Mr R. Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors | SLP(C) No. 23633-23634/2010
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 131
The Supreme Court issued a set of directions to mitigate the pollution caused by the enormous discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries into the Palar River in Vellore District(Tamil Nadu).
Notable among them are the directions to pay compensation to the affected families, to recover the compensation from the polluting industries as per the "polluter pays" principle and to constitute an expert panel to assess and audit the ecological damage and suggest remedial measures.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, which passed the judgment, stated that the directions are in the nature of a "continuing mandamus" and that the matter will be periodically listed to review compliance. A compliance report has been sought within four months.
Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Can't Be Reduced Merely Because Dependents Took Over Business Of Deceased: Supreme Court
Case Details: S. Vishnu Ganga & Ors. v. M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 132
The Supreme Court ruled that the takeover of the deceased persons' business by dependents does not justify reducing motor accident compensation. It emphasized that the deceased persons' contribution to the business must be considered in assessing compensation claims.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah granted relief to the daughters of a deceased couple who ran a business and died in a road accident. The appellants sought ₹1 crore each in compensation. The MACT awarded ₹58.24 lakh for the father and ₹93.61 lakh for the mother, with 7.5% annual interest. The High Court reduced these to ₹26.68 lakh and ₹19.22 lakh, citing minimal financial loss as the daughters had taken over the business, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Caste-Based Abuse Within Chamber Of Govt Officer When No One Else Was Present Not SC/ST Act Offence: Supreme Court
Case Details: Karuppudayar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 133
The Supreme Court quashed a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an individual who was accused of abusing a public servant using his caste name in a government office.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih observed that no prima facie case was made out against the Appellant for allegedly insulting the public servant using his caste name inside the government office because caste-based abuse inside a private office does not qualify as an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) unless it occurs in public view.
“It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.”, the court observed.
The Court stated since the incident took place within the four corners of the wall of the government office, not accessible in public view, therefore the Court held that no offence under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) was committed.
S.34 IPC | Prior Meetings Of Minds Must Be Established To Convict With Aid Of 'Common Intention': Supreme Court
Case Details: Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand., Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
The Supreme Court (January 28), while allowing constables' appeal against their conviction for murder, reiterated that in order to charge accused persons under Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC, it must be established that the accused had preplanned the act and shared a common intention. Reliance was placed on several judgments including the recent decision in Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
“By now it is a settled principle of law that for convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds. It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime. It must be established that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.,” the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih said.
Trial Courts Wrongly Convicting Persons For Dowry Death Misapplying S.304B IPC; Time For Judicial Academies To Step In: Supreme Court
Case Details: Karan Singh v. State of Haryana., Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 135
The Supreme Court, while overturning the appellant/ accused's conviction under Section 304-B (Dowry death) of the IPC, noted that while the Court has repeatedly laid down this provision's ingredients, the Trial Courts were committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in., the Court said.
Essentially, the allegations against the appellant were for committing dowry death and cruelty to his wife who died by suicide. As a result, he was convicted for these offences and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years in total. The High Court confirmed this sentence. Challenging these judgments, he approached the Apex Court.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, at the outset, discussed the essential ingredients of Section 304-B. Firstly, the death must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances. The same must have been within seven years of her marriage. Further, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, for dowry's demand, soon before her death.
It further noted that even to invoke presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it is essential to prove that the appellant was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
Supreme Court Orders Regular Pay To Petitioners Who Were Appointed As Part-Time Sweepers On Regular Sanctioned Posts
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 136
The Supreme Court granted relief to part-time sweepers who were appointed on a temporary basis to regular sanctioned posts, affirming that such part-time employees are entitled to receive regular pay.
The Court rejected the State's argument that a part-time appointment on a regular sanctioned post would not entitle the Appellants to receive regular pay.
“Their (Appellants) designation as 'part-time' sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless. Appellants were thus appointed on regular posts even though they were temporary.”, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said.
'Once Arrest Is Found Illegal, Duty Of Court To Release Accused On Bail': Supreme Court Rejects ED Appeal
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137
The Supreme Court declared the arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as illegal and unconstitutional because the agency failed to secure the presence of the arrestee before the magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.
The arrestee was detained on 5th March 2022 at 11 AM at IGI Airport, Delhi by the Immigration Bureau in view of the Look Out Circular issued by the ED, however, the ED showed his arrest at 01:15 Hours on 6th March 2022, claiming that the arrest was not illegal because he was presented the same day at 3 PM before the magistrate within the stipulated 24 hours of the arrest.
The ED's attempt to justify the arrest by citing a March 6th, 1:15 am arrest time was rejected by a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench noted the individual was already in custody by 11 am on March 5th, making the arrest illegal.
'Court Fee Refund Only If Case Settled Through ADR Mechanisms': Supreme Court Rejects Refund Claim For Private Out-of-Court Settlement
Case Details: Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 138
The Supreme Court held that litigants who resolve their disputes privately outside of court are not entitled to a refund of court fees.
The Court said that the refund of the court fees is permissible only “if the matter is referred to Arbitration, Conciliation, judicial settlement, including through Lok Adalat or mediation for settlement and the case is decided in terms of such a settlement and not otherwise.”
The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the SLP where the petitioner was aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to refund the court fees paid by him in the trial court, first appeal and second appeal because the case was amicably settled on their own outside the court without an aid of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism.
S.156(3) CrPC v. S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Mandates Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR, Ensures Reasoned Order: Supreme Court
Case Details: Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139
The Supreme Court criticized the routine use of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order police investigations, even in simple cases where the court could proceed directly to trial, stressing that magistrates should act judicially, not mechanically as a mere post office.
The Court clarified that the magistrate can direct the police investigation only “where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police.”
The aforesaid observation came by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan while hearing an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench decision refusing to set aside the magistrate's order directing the registration of FIR against the Appellant/Police official herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 & 506 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”).
High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal Under Article 32 Of Constitution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. – 1995/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 140
The Supreme Court held that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court added that if petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment for not being heard, they can either pray for its recall or challenge the same through a special leave petition.
“In our considered opinion, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.,” opined the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.
Did NOIDA Authorities Pay Excess Compensation To Landowners? Whether NOIDA Lacks Transparency? Supreme Court Asks SIT To Probe
Case Details: Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 141
The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate whether the officers of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) paid excess land acquisition compensation to certain land owners.
The Court also asked the SIT to examine "whether the overall functioning of NOIDA lacks transparency, fairness and commitment to the cause of public interest."
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order while considering a petition filed by a Law Adviser and Legal Officer of NOIDA seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case which was registered over the allegation that huge amount of compensation was released in favour of some land owners over and above their legal entitlement.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Judgment Allowing Jharkhand Residents Who Cleared CTET/TET From Neighbouring States To Apply For 2023 Teacher Recruitment
Case Details: Parimal Kumar and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 142
The Supreme Court set aside a 2023 judgment of the Jharkhand High Court permitting Jharkhand residents who had cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) from neighbouring states to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Teacher positions in Jharkhand.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal pronounced the judgment. The Court said that the impugned judgment based on the concession of the Jharkhand Advocate General amounts to changing the rules of the game after the commencement of the recruitment process in July 2023.
"We make it clear that CTET holders and state TET holders who applied after the judgement of the High Court or after the amendment of the Rules would not be eligible for the recruitment process of 2023", the Court pronounced.
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
SARFAESI - Dues Of Secured Creditor Superior To Dues To State Govt Departments: Bombay High Court Full Bench
Case Details:
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
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 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 Lok Sabha 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 along with 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 along with 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 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 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 Maharashtra, 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 Up to 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 up to 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 assistance 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 Shifting 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. 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 along with 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 Show cause 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 show cause 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 decision 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
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.
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Transfer Cyber-Complaints Against Alleged Victim Of Fake Stock Market Investment Scheme
Case Details: Shailender Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition which sought the transfer of multiple cyber complaints filed against a petitioner, who claimed to be a victim of cyber fraud, to one authority.
In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that three cyber complaints had been filed against him arising out of the same cause of action thereby, violating his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violating his right to a fair investigation.
As per the writ petition, the petitioner became a victim of cybercrime by falling prey to the fake stock market investment scheme run by the cybercriminals through a WhatsApp group.
CLAT 2025: Supreme Court Expresses Inclination To Transfer Petitions Against CLAT 2025 To Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Details: Consortium of National Law Universities v. Master Aditya Singh, Minor | TP (C) 000046 - 000054 / 2025
The Supreme Court expressed the inclination to transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court the petitions filed in other High Courts challenging the results of the Common Law Admission Test-2025 (CLAT-2025) held in December 2024 for admissions to undergraduate and post-graduate law courses in various National Law Universities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the transfer petitions by the Consortium of National Law Universities seeking the consolidation of all the petitions and their transfer either to the Supreme Court or to any particular High Court.
'Won't Tolerate Union Of India Making Submissions Against Law': Supreme Court Pulls Up ED Over Argument Against PMLA
Case Details: Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court said that it would not tolerate legal submissions made on behalf of the Union of India which are contrary to the law.
The Court made this harsh remark while disapproving of the argument made by the Enforcement Directorate that the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act will not apply to a woman.
"We will not tolerate conduct on the part of Union of India to make submissions contrary to statute," a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
Ultimately, the bench granted bail to the accused, considering that she has been under incarceration since November 2023 and that there was no likelihood of an early completion of trial in the near future as the recording of evidence has not commenced and there are 67 witnesses to be examined.
Farmers Protest: Supreme Court Seeks Complete Medical Report Of Farmers' Leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal Who's On Hunger Strike
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET. (C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
The Supreme Court sought complete comparative medical reports of farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal (who has been on a hunger strike) including his latest vitals to take stock of his medical condition. The Chief Secretary of Punjab is directed to handover the reports to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court who shall then obtain the medical opinion from the Director (AIIMS).
This order was passed after the State of Punjab submitted that his health condition is "improving" but later clarified that his vitals are "stable" rather than improving.
Before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State of Punjab, at the outset submitted that there is now a medical facility just 10 meters near the protest site and that Dallewal's parameters are "improving". An affidavit on Dallewal's latest vitals was filed before the Court.
Supreme Court Adjourns To Jan 20 RJD MLC's Plea Challenging Expulsion From Bihar Legislative Council Over Comment On Nitish Kumar
Case Details: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 530/2024
The Supreme Court adjourned to January 20 RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh's plea challenging his expulsion from Bihar Legislative Council for allegedly using defamatory words against State's Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh directed the listing, upon hearing Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar (for respondent-Bihar Legislative Council) who, after making submissions for about half an hour, prayed for some more time to address the court.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for Singh) informed the Court about Bihar Legislative Council bye-elections being notified in to fill vacancy arising upon Singh's expulsion, of which results were likely to be declared today. As the matter remained part-heard, it was directed that the results of the bye-elections be withheld.
Supreme Court Warns States/UTs Of Contempt Proceedings Over Inaction On Misleading Medical Advertisements
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court warned that it will initiate contempt proceedings against states and union territories that failed to take action against misleading advertisements and medical claims that run contrary to law.
“We make it clear that every find non-compliance by any of the states and union territories we may have to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned States”, a bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) regarding misleading claims and advertisements targeting modern or “allopathic” medicine.
Supreme Court Dismisses J&K Govt's Plea Against HC Direction To Create 334 Judicial Posts Within 60 Days
Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. v. Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 808/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed Jammu and Kashmir government's challenge to a High Court order which directed the UT authorities to create 334 judicial posts within 60 days.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that the main matter is pending before the High Court and the observations contained in the impugned order - an interim order - were tentative.
The order was dictated thus: "We see no reason to entertain the present SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the observations made in the interim order to at the interlocutory stage is made tentative in the event subject to the final order that would be passed in the pending proceedings.
Supreme Court Summons Principal Secretary Of Maharashtra Urban Development Dept Over Failure To Fund Sewage Treatment Projects
Case Details: Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
The Supreme Court summoned the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Maharashtra, in connection with the State's inability to clear two sewage treatment projects in Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation area due to lack of funds.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found the State's position that the projects couldn't be cleared due to lack of funds “strange”, and emphasized that non-implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 directly contributes to air pollution.
Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea Against Congress Leader Sukhpal Singh Khaira's Bail
Case Details: Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Sukhpal Singh Khaira, SLP(Crl) No. 8985/2022
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for the cancellation of bail to Indian National Congress MLA from Bholath constituency, Sukhpal Singh Khaira.
The SLP challenged January 27, 2022, order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which granted bail to Khaira under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in connection with a predicate and scheduled offence alleged to have been committed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in 2015.
Supreme Court Suspends Life Sentence Of Anu Shanthi In Attingal Double Murder Case
Case Details: Anu Shanthi v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court suspended the life imprisonment sentence of Anu Shanthi, who was convicted for the murder of her mother-in-law and three-year-old daughter in the 2014 Attingal double murder case.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan suspended the sentence and granted bail till the pendency of her appeal against the conviction.
Supreme Court Dismisses Daughter's Plea Challenging Donation Of CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence's Body To Medical College
Case Details: Asha Lawrence and Anr. v. State of Kerala | SLP(C) 897/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the handing over of the mortal remains of late MM Lawrence, leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Kerala and former Lok Sabha MP, to a medical hospital for research.
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Asha Lawrence, daughter of MM Lawrence, challenging the decision of the Kerala High Court which approved the decision of her siblings to donate the body to a medical hospital.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain BRS MLA KTR's Plea To Quash FIR In Formula-E Race "Scam"
Case Details: Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao v. State ACB CIU Hyderabad and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 422/2025
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao (KTR) against the Telangana High Court's order refusing to quash a First Information Report against him over the alleged Formula-E race "scam".
On January 7, the High Court stated that Rao as then Urban Development Minister was controlling the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. Thus, the body's funds which were allegedly misused, were "prima facie" entrusted to him.
FIR against Rao is filed under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent), criminal conspiracy under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale stated that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Ex-IAS Officer Puja Khedkar, Issues Notice On Anticipatory Bail Plea
Case Details: Puja Manorama Dilip Khedkar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 357/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on the anticipatory bail plea of ex-IAS probationary officer Puja Khedkar, who is accused of “misrepresenting and falsifying facts" in her application for Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination, 2022. Further, it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against her in the criminal case registered pursuant to the allegations till the next date (i.e. February 14).
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order, stating, "issue notice on respondent/state as well as respondent-UPSC...returnable on 14.02.2025. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioner herein vis-a-vis FIR No...".
Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings Against IMA President Accepting His Apology For Remarks Against Court
Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India
The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against the Indian Medical Association (IMA) President, Dr. RV Asokan, over his remarks made in a media interview against the court's observations on unethical practices by IMA members.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan accepted an apology tendered by Dr. Asokan and concluded that no further action was necessary. Today, the Counsel appearing for Dr. Asokan informed the court that an apology has been published on the newspapers, on the website, and the IMA newsletter.
Limitation Period For Husband's Plea To Annul Child Marriage Starts From Age 18 Or 21? Supreme Court To Decide
Case Details: Guddan@Usha v. Sanjay Chudhary, SLP(C) No. 771/2025
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition raising the issue as to whether the age of 'majority' – for males – when computing limitation period for filing a petition seeking annulment of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), should be 18 years or 21 years.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed the order while dealing with the petitioner-wife's plea against an Allahabad High Court judgment which allowed the respondent-husband's prayer to declare the couple's marriage void even though the annulment was applied for when he was about 23 years of age.
Supreme Court To Reconstitute Bench On Coal Block Allocation Cases After Justice KV Viswanathan's Recusal
Case Details: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 120/2012
Supreme Court Judge Justice KV Viswanathan recused from the hearing the batch of pleas relating to the 2014 Coal Block Allocation cases.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the applications filed by the Enforcement Directorate in ML Sharma Coal Scam case. Justice Viswanathan revealed that he had appeared as an advocate in the related cases of Common Cause and Ors v. Union of India and Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
"There is some difficulty, my brother (Justice Viswanathan) was probably appearing as a counsel in some of the matters" " the CJI said
Supreme Court Grants Bail to JJM Scam Accused Padam Chand Jain In PMLA Case, Clarifies That Bail To Manish Sisodia Was Not Granted Under Article 142
Case Details: Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl) No. 17476/2024
While granting bail to Jal Jeevan Mission scam accused Padam Chand Jain in a money laundering case, the Supreme Court clarified that the order granting bail to former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia was not passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, which noted that Jain has already been granted bail in the predicate offenses, that evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, and that charges are yet to be framed.
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Ex-Bharti Airtel CEO Over Obscene SMSes Received By Airtel Subscriber
Case Details: Rajiv Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, SLP(Crl) No. 6066/2020
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings pending against a former Chief Executive Officer of Bharti Airtel, who was booked over a lawyer's complaint regarding receipt of 'obscene' messages on his Airtel number.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, keeping the FIR intact for the limited purpose of investigation into the alleged offense, to find out the persons/agencies responsible for sending of the undesirable messages.
5.25 Acres Of Land For Bombay HC New Building Will Be Handed Over By End Of January: Maharashtra Govt To Supreme Court
Case Details: In Re: Heritage Building of the Bombay High Court and Allotment of Additional Lands for the High Court, SMW (C) No. 5/2024
In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Maharashtra government informed the Supreme Court that an area of 5.25 acres, which was to be handed over by December 31, 2024 would be handed over by the end of January, 2025.
The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai, AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran which, taking into account Maharashtra government's submission, posted it to April, 2025, while appreciating the proactive role played by the state to ensure that the construction of the building starts at the earliest and is completed in a time-bound manner.
Supreme Court Rejects Ex-PFI Head Abubacker's Plea For Bail On Medical Grounds, Declines Request To Allow House Arrest
Case Details: Abubacker E. v. National Investigation Agency, Diary No. 32949-2024
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of E Abubacker, the former Chairman of the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), for bail on medical grounds.
Abubacker, who is presently in judicial custody, was arrested under Sections 120B and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 22B 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was arrested in September 2022 by the agency during a massive crackdown on the banned organisation in 2022 wherein the Central Government banned PFI and associated entities for a period of five years under relevant provisions of UAPA.
Supreme Court Stays HC Order Requiring Delhi Govt To Sign MoU With Centre On Implementation Of PM-ABHIM Scheme
Case Details: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No. 921-2025
The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court order which directed Delhi government to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Centre by January 5 for implementation of PM-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) scheme in the national capital.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, seeking the Centre's response on the Delhi government's plea challenging the High Court order.
Arbitration Is 'Arbitrator-Centric', Making The Right Choice Of Arbitrator Can Ease Problems For Parties: CJI Sanjiv Khanna
Case Details: Roads and Building Department v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Limited | SLP(C) No. 001622 - 001623 / 2025
The Supreme Court expressed the importance for arbitrating parties to choose their arbitrator wisely as the correct choice may ease several complexities that the parties may face in their dispute.
The CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna during the hearing of an arbitration matter opined,
"Arbitration is always Arbitrator centric. Normally if you make the right choice of arbitrator...we normally underestimate the question of choice of arbitrator, if you introspect you will get a lot of answers"
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the Department's challenge to an order of the Gujarat High Court which had appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The bench ultimately dismissed the challenge.
Delhi Air Pollution | Supreme Court Extends Complete Firecracker Ban In NCR Districts Of Uttar Pradesh And Haryana Until Further Orders
Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court extended the firecracker ban in districts of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana that fall in the National Capital Region till further orders.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing the MC Mehta case regarding air pollution in Delhi and NCR.
“Till further orders are passed the ban imposed by the state of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to NCR parts of the states which was effective till today is extended. The compliance by the states will be considered on 24th of March 2025”, the Court ordered.
Supreme Court Asks 3 High Courts If Commercial Divisions Dealing With Admiralty Law Are Constituted
Case Details: MV Global Emerald v. Meck Petroleum DMCC & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20990/2024
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Registrar Generals of the High Courts of Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa on the status of setting up Commercial Divisions dealing with admiralty cases.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a commercial suit relating to admiralty and maritime law, when a circular dated 24.02.2022 issued by the High Court of Karnataka was noted by the bench.
As per the Circular, a commercial division consisting of a Single Judge has been constituted, each for the Principal Bench at Bengaluru and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Telangana HC Decision Which Struck Down Local Quota Criteria For PG Medical Admissions
Case Details: State of Telangana v. S. Satyanarana & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30706-30708/2024
The Supreme Court refused to stay a Telangana High Court judgment which struck down amended criteria for determining 'local' status of candidates in post-graduate medical admissions.
For context, the provisions struck down by the High Court(on December 17, 2024) included explanation clause (b) to Rule 8(ii) of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 (and a similar clause under the AYUSH course rules), which sought to impose a stricter criteria for determining 'local' status of a candidate.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating, "we are afraid that such a prayer cannot be granted without hearing the petition on merits. The High Court by an elaborate judgment has set aside certain provisions of law. Unless we find that the reasoning as adopted by the High Court is erroneous, in our view, an interim order to the effect of staying the impugned judgment and order would not be in the interest of justice".
Supreme Court Stays Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi In Criminal Defamation Case Over Remarks Against BJP & Amit Shah
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., Diary No. 36772-2024
The Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings in the criminal defamation case filed against Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for allegedly saying that Bharatiya Janata Party members were "liars" and "drunk with power" and for calling Union Home Minister Amit Shah a "murder-accused".
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on Rahul Gandhi's Special Leave Petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court judgment which dismissed his plea to quash the defamation case filed against him by BJP worker Navin Jha.
Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Asks UP Police To Enquire If Ashish Mishra Attempted To Influence Witnesses
Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur (Uttar Pradesh) to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into the allegations that Ashish Mishra attempted to influence the witnesses in the Lakhimpur-Kheri killings case.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the direction while hearing an application filed by the family members of the deceased seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Ashish Mishra alleging that he was trying to influence the witnesses in the case.
Supreme Court Asks J&K&L HC To Install Proper VC Facilities In Jammu Court Holding Trial Against Yasin Malik
Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik
The Supreme Court asked the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh to take immediate steps to install proper video-conferencing facilities in the Court in Jammu, which is holding the trial against Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik and other accused in the case related to the assassination of four Indian Air Force officials in 1989.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order after considering a report from the trial judge where he stated that the video conferencing facilities in that Court were not functioning properly.
Supreme Court Extends Women's Reservation To NGT Delhi Bar Assn; Says BCD Enrolment Not Necessary To Vote In NGT Bar Elections
Case Details: D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024
The Supreme Court clarified that its order reserving posts for women lawyers in Delhi's High Court and District Bar Associations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the National Green Tribunal Bar Association in the capital. Further, it was held that registration with the Bar Council of Delhi is not mandatory for a lawyer-member of the NGT Bar Association to cast a vote, as lawyers from several states appear and argue before the NGT.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,
"It is directed that the interim directions regarding earmarking the post of Treasurer and some of the members of the Executive Committee, for women candidates in the High Court/District Bar Associations of NCT of Delhi shall apply mutatis mutandis to the NGT Bar Association also. The requisite procedure be followed and the reservation for the women candidates be accordingly provided in the election of the NGT Bar Association as well."
Supreme Court Criticises Uttar Pradesh Govt For Non-Compliance With Order To Investigate Illegal Filling Of Water Bodies
Case Details: Mirza Abid Beg v. State of UP & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the non-compliance by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the Court's direction to investigate and submit a report on instances of illegal filling of water bodies in Bijnor District.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that despite orders passed on July 16, 2024, and November 22, 2024, the Committee failed to comply with the directions. The Court directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment of Uttar Pradesh to submit a personal affidavit detailing the progress made in compliance with the July 16, 2024, order.
“Notwithstanding clear orders dated 16th July, 2024 and 22nd November, 2024, the Committee appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh has not complied with the directions issued by this Court. The State has not shown elementary courtesy of making an application for extension of time for complying with the orders passed by this Court. We direct the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file his personal affidavit placing on record the details of the work carried out as of date in terms of the order dated 16th July, 2024.”
Atul Subhash Case: Supreme Court Disposes Of Habeas Corpus Petition Filed By Mother Of Subhash To Know Whereabouts Of Child
Case Details: Anju Devi v. State of Karnataka and Ors., Diary No. 59653-2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by Anju Devi, mother of Karnataka-based techie Atul Subhash, to know about the whereabouts of her grandson.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter in in-camera proceedings to maintain the privacy of the child. After the Court interacted with the child, it disposed of the petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court in case of child custody.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Specified Ministry For Senior Citizens, Allows Petitioner To Approach Govt
Case Details: G Priyadharshni v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 21/2025
The Supreme Court on January 20 refused to entertain a writ petition as withdrawn seeking direction for the Union Government to consider establishing a dedicated Ministry for senior citizens of the country. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and make an appropriate representation to the concerned ministries of the Government.
The writ petition was heard by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra.
The petitioner was Advocate G Priyadharshi, a lawyer and social worker, who sought a special ministry in the Union Government for the senior citizens. The writ petition states: "It is most respectfully submitted that 'senior citizens' being a 'vulnerable class' in itself, comes under constitutional prism of Article 21 owing to the unique and myriad challenges they suffer such as health, societal structure, financial instability and dependence."
Order Passed On Oral Consent Given By Counsel Can't Be Reviewed On Ground That There Was No Written Consent: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda
The Supreme Court emphasized that all constitutional courts in India accept oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties, and an order cannot be reviewed solely on the ground that consent was not provided in writing.