Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 27, 2025 To February 02, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

3 Feb 2025 4:24 PM IST

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 27, 2025 To February 02, 2025

    Nominal IndexCitationsHarshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 110Surendra G. Shankar & Anr v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 111Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 112Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 113Maulvi Syed Shad Kazmi @...

    Nominal Index

    Citations

    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

    Orders

    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

    MC Mehta v. Union of India

    MC Mehta v. Union of India

    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

    Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema and Anr. v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 994/2019 and Connected Matters

    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

    Sanjay Dubey v. The Full Court of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi, Through The Registrar General & Ors. | Diary No. 3045 / 2025

    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

    Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14886/2024

    Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024

    Dr. Priyambada Sharma, Etc. Etc. v. Board of Governors In Supersession of Medical Council of India & Ors. Etc.

    Other Developments

    Reports/Judgments

    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.

    Orders

    Supreme Court Grants Bail To Telangana Police Officer Accused Of Phone-Tapping Bureaucrats & Judges

    Case Details: Mekala Thirupathanna v. State of Telangana, SLP(Crl) No. 14658/2024

    The Supreme Court today(January 27) granted bail to Mekala Thirupathanna, a suspended police officer accused of phone-tapping bureaucrats and High Court judges, after 10 months of incarceration.

    A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted bail while stating that the trial Court may set appropriate bail conditions. Any breach of the bail condition may lead to the bail's cancellation. The SLP was filed against the High Court of Telangana's order denying him bail last October.

    'Tell Us Where Rohingya Families Live': Supreme Court In Plea Seeking Admission For Rohingya Children In Local Schools

    Case Details: Social Jurist A Civil Rights Group v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 1895/2025

    In a petition seeking admission for Rohingya refugee children in local schools, the Supreme Court called on the petitioner (an NGO) to file an affidavit stating whether the Rohingya refugees are confined in make-shift camps or living in regular residential colonies.

    A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order in a plea filed by Social Jurist-A Civil Rights Group, challenging Delhi High Court's dismissal of similar prayer on the basis that it is for the Centre to take a call on the issue.

    Anna University Sexual Assault Case: Supreme Court Stays Madras HC's Directions Against Tamil Nadu Police Over FIR Leak

    Case Details: Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. R. Varalakshmi and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 1027-1028/2025

    The Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's direction to the Tamil Nadu police to hold a departmental enquiry regarding the leak of the FIR in the sexual assault case of a 2nd Year Engineering Student inside the Anna University campus in Chennai.

    A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also stayed the adverse comments made by the High Court against the State Police in relation to the FIR leak.

    The interim order was passed while issuing notice to the respondents on the State's petition seeking the expunction of the adverse remarks made by the High Court.

    At the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma while stating that the SIT shall continue its investigation, stayed the operation of paragraphs 20, 21, 23 and 29(9) of the order which puts responsibility for the lapses on the police officer.

    Whenever There's A Protest, S.144 CrPC Order Is Issued; This Sends Wrong Signal: Supreme Court

    Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey & Anr.

    The Supreme Court flagged the misuse of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 163 BNSS) to issue curfew orders to curb protests and demonstrations.

    A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering a petition filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging the Jharkhand High Court's order quashing cases against 28 BJP leaders including Nishikant Dubey, Arjun Munda and Babulal Marandi in connection to a protest against the state government in 2023.

    Supreme Court Appoints Retd P&H HC Judge As Independent Observer To Physically Supervise Chandigarh Mayoral Elections On Jan 30

    Case Details: Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 4190-2025

    In a plea filed by Chandigarh Mayor Kuldeep Kumar, the Supreme Court appointed former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Jaishree Thakur as an Independent Observer to supervise the Chandigarh Mayoral Elections scheduled for January 30. The election proceedings shall take place in the physical presence of the Observer, the Court said.

    A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and ordered the appointment, following a no-objection given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Municipal Corporation.

    'For Parliament To Do': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Reform Domestic Violence & Dowry Laws

    Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 25/2025

    The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to ensure that the husband and his family members are not harassed in false cases of domestic violence and under dowry laws.

    The PIL was filed in the wake of the suicide of a man named Atul Subhash allegedly due to harassment by his wife through matrimonial cases. It was filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking directions to the Union to implement the observations made by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand(2010) and Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana(2024).

    Appearing in person, Advocate Tiwari reiterated that he is seeking a review of the anti-dowry laws and domestic cruelty judgments. However, the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, not inclined to entertain the same, asked him to either withdraw or the Court will dismiss it.

    Justice Nagarathna remarked that advocates must avoid filing such petitions. She said: “You see, you are an advocate. Never become a litigant. See an advocate must avoid being a litigant and an advocate must never be a surety. Two advice we are giving. You are exposing yourself. See, we might pass strictures, we might impose cost. You are a practising advocate. Why do you want to expose yourself as a party?”

    Supreme Court Rejects Petitions Against Udhayanidhi Stalin For 'Sanatana Dharma' Remarks

    Case Details: B Jagannath v. State of Tamil Nadu| W.P.(C) No. 1001/2023

    The Supreme Court refused to entertain three writ petitions seeking criminal action against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for the controversial speech made by him in September 2023 about 'Sanatana Dharma'.

    A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale expressed disinclination to entertain the matter, asking how the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution could be maintained.

    PIL For Women Safety | 'Why Should Women Have To Go To Police Station To Lodge Complaint?': Supreme Court Suggests Online Complaint System

    Case Details: Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association v. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (Crl.) No. 526/2024

    During the hearing of a public interest litigation seeking pan-India guidelines for safety of women, the Supreme Court asked the Union of India as to why there is no mechanism in place to enable women to lodge complaints online. Having such a system can resolve issues related to police station jurisdiction as well as eliminate need for women to physically go to police stations, the Court said.

    A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and adjourned it in light of Union of India's request for time to file a counter-affidavit. Giving a time of 6 weeks, the bench asked the Union to file a comprehensive affidavit stipulating the stance of all concerned Ministries. It further called on the petitioner to seek suggestions from women lawyers across the country (especially those practicing before State High Courts) and to file the same in a collated manner.

    No PUC Certificate, Registration Of Transfer & Other Services For Vehicles Without High-Security Registration Plates In NCR: Supreme Court

    Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

    The Supreme Court directed all National Capital Region (NCR) states to enforce compliance with the High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Order, 2018 and color-coded stickers on vehicles for identifying fuel types.

    A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed that NCR states must not undertake certain vehicle-related activities unless the vehicles conform to the Order. Further, the states have been directed to ensure that no Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate is issued to any vehicle that is not compliant with the HSRP Order.

    Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Deadline Extension Given To NCR Power Plants For Compliance With Statutory Emission Norms

    Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

    The Supreme Court expressed concern over extension of three years granted by the government to power plants to comply with statutory emission norms for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and non-SO2 pollutants.

    If these timelines are extended, there will be a problem for Delhi. So CAQM should suggest some interim guidelines and based on those suggestions we can pass an order under Article 142. The compliance deadlines keep getting extended”, Justice Abhay Oka remarked.

    A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR (CAQM) to recommend interim environmental norms for 11 power plants and their units in NCR till the compliance deadlines for statutory emission norms reach.

    Supreme Court Gives Last Chance To States/UTs On Compliance With Directions To End Caste Discrimination In Prisons

    Case Details: In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India | SMW(C) No. 10/2024

    The Supreme Court granted "one last opportunity" to the States and Union Territories to file compliance reports of the orders passed in the Sukanya Shantha judgment. Last year, while observing that discrimination inside prisons based on grounds of caste, gender, and disability is illegal, the Court initiated a suo moto proceedings tilted In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India.

    The suo moto case was listed before a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in which Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar appeared. He briefly stated that the compliance report was to be filed within 3 months of the order on whether the States and Union Territories had revised their Prison Manuals in accordance with the judgment or not. However, no compliance report has come on record.

    The Court has also asked NALSA to file a joint status report in regards to compliance. The Court also admitted an application filed by Dr. Muralidhar on the developments that have taken place in this matter.

    Adani-Hindenburg Matter: Supreme Court Affirms Registry's Refusal To Accept Plea To Direct SEBI To Complete Probe

    Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., MA 2346/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 162/2023

    The Supreme Court on January 27 dismissed a litigant's challenge to an order passed by the Registrar of the Court refusing to register his application for direction to the Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) to file its investigation report in the Hindenburg Research-Adani Group matter.

    A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order rejecting a Miscellaneous Application filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari.

    Supreme Court Grants Custody Parole To Delhi Riots Accused Tahir Hussain For Delhi Assembly Elections Campaigning

    Case Details: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025

    The Supreme Court granted custody parole to Mohd Tahir Hussain, an undertrial prisoner in the Delhi riots case, to canvass votes in the Mustafabad constituency as a candidate of the AIMIM in elections to the Delhi legislative assembly.

    As per the custody parole, Hussain will be released during the day hours (for 12 hours, as per the Jail Manual) from January 29 to February 3 for campaigning, subjected to the advance payment of expenses stipulated in the order.

    Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Ex-Muslim's Plea To Be Governed By Indian Succession Act Instead Of Shariat Law

    Case Details: Sufiya PM v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024

    The Supreme Court directed the Union to file its reply in 4 weeks in a plea seeking a declaration that a person who was born a Muslim, but ceased to be a believer, would not be governed by the Shariat law.

    The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea by the petitioner Safiya PM who sought the inclusion of those Muslims who had renounced their faith into the Indian Succession Act, 1925 instead of the Muslim personal law in matters relating to succession and inheritance.

    Women Reservation: Supreme Court Creates Addl Posts In Advocates' Association Bengaluru; Clarifies 8 Yrs Experience Necessary

    Case Details: Deeksha N Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1404/2025

    Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court modified its order reserving posts for women candidates in the elections of Advocates' Association Bengaluru (AAB) and ordered that additional posts of Vice-President and Governing Council members shall be deemed to have been created to accommodate those who had filed nominations by the time the order directing reservation was passed.

    A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order on three applications seeking modification of order dated January 24, 2025 whereby as an interim measure, the post of Treasurer in AAB was directed to be exclusively earmarked for women candidates and the concerned High-Powered Committee and Chief Returning Officer asked to consider desirability of reserving atleast 30% of Governing Council posts for women.

    AoR Designated As Senior Advocate Cannot Appear Without Informing Clients Of Sr Designation & Reporting Compliance To Registry: Supreme Court

    Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Advocates on Record (AoRs) who are designated as Senior Advocates must inform their clients about their designation and submit a report to the Registry confirming that alternate arrangements have been made for their clients' representation.

    The Court stated that failure to comply with this obligation would bar such Senior Advocates from appearing before the Court, as per Rule 18, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

    A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed to the Registry to notify AoRs who have not complied with Rule 18, of this requirement. The Court noted that such advocates cannot appear as Senior Advocates until they fulfil their obligations under the Rule.

    How Many Criminal Cases Registered Across Country For Pronouncing 'Triple Talaq' ? Supreme Court Asks Union

    Case Details: Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema and Anr. v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 994/2019 and Connected Matters

    The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to give data about the criminal cases registered under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 against Muslim men for the pronouncement of triple talaq.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim organisations challenging the constitutionality of the 2019 Act, which criminalises the pronouncement of triple talaq.

    The bench asked the Union to give the total number of FIRs registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act.

    Supreme Court Bans Manual Scavenging & Manual Sewer Cleaning In Six Metropolitan Cities

    Case Details: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

    The Supreme Court passed directions banning manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities in a writ petition seeking the eradication of manual scavenging in India.

    In its order, it stated that in the comprehensive affidavit filed by the Union, there is "no clarity" on the eradication of manual scavenging and sewer cleaning.

    "We hereby intend to stop the manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning in all the top Metropolitan cities of the country viz. a) Delhi b)Mumbai c) Kolkata d) Chennai e) Bangalore and f) Hyderabad."

    Adding to the order passed, it directed the Chief executive officer (whatever name they are called in the respective cities) of each metropolitan city shall file a precise affidavit apprising as to how and when manual scavenging and sewer cleaning is stopped in the city. The affidavit shall be filed latest by February 13.

    Why 2-Judge Benches Hear Bail Applications? Supreme Court Questions Calcutta High Court Practice, Seeks Report

    Case Details: Mahatab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

    The Supreme Court questioned the practice of the Calcutta High Court hearing regular and anticipatory bail applications before Division Benches instead of Single Judges, as is the norm in other High Courts.

    When there is a huge filing and pendency of the bail applications, we wonder why regular bail applications and anticipatory bail applications are being heard by the Division Bench of this High Court especially when in case of all other High Courts, the bail matters are being heard by the learned Single Judges. The question is whether two Hon'ble Judges of the High Court should be devoting time for dealing with regular bail applications”, the Court stated.

    A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan sought a report from the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court explaining this practice and directed the submission of data on bail applications filed in 2024 and their pendency.

    Can Property Of Person Accused Under Prevention Of Corruption Act Be Seized Or Frozen U/S 102 CrPC? Supreme Court To Decide

    Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey Sarkar, SLP(Crl.) No. 1003/2025

    In the backdrop of divergent High Court views on the point, the Supreme Court is set to decide the issue as to whether Section 102 CrPC, which deals with police officer's power to seize certain property, shall apply to a criminal case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    "The petitioner has raised an interesting issue with regard to the exercise of the power by the enforcement agencies under the provision of section 102 of the Cr.P.C. in cases arising out of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act", noted a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PK Mishra in a recent order passed in a petition filed by the State of West Bengal.

    The Court also stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the Calcutta High Court, which set aside freezing of bank accounts of the accused-respondent on the basis that the same was done by invoking Section 102 CrPC.

    Malankara-Jacobite Dispute: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Hand Over Churches, Says 'Police Going Inside Religious Places Bothers Us'

    Case Details: V Venu and others v. St.Mary's Orthodox Church (Odakkal Palli)., SLP(C) No. 26064-26069/2024

    The Supreme Court set aside the directions of the Kerala High Court which directed the State authorities to take over the possession of six churches from the Jacobite faction and hand them over to the Malankara Orthodox faction.

    A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh asked the division bench of the High Court to take a fresh decision on the contempt petitions in the light of some of the issues highlighted in today's order.

    The bench observed that there was a need to determine the true effect of the previous judgments of the Supreme Court in the Malankara-Jacobite dispute and to ascertain who are the parties bound by those decisions.

    The bench also shared its concerns about police officers going to religious places to take them over.

    Supreme Court Relaxes Conditions To Appoint Ad Hoc Judges In High Courts, Says Vacancies Needn't Be More Than 20%

    Case Details: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla I.A.S. (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

    Relaxing the conditions to appoint ad hoc judges in High Courts, the Supreme Court kept in abeyance the condition in its April 2021 judgment that ad hoc judges as per Article 224 of the Constitution can be appointed only if the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.

    As per Article 224A, retired High Court judges can be appointed as High Court Judges.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant passed the direction so as to ease the appointment of ad-hoc judges considering the high rise in the pendency of cases, especially criminal appeals.

    Supreme Court Allows Temporary Allocation Of Fixed Spot For Meat Vendors In Panjim

    Case Details: The Corporation of The City of Panaji v. Mushtak Hussain Khatib | SLP (C) No. 030051 - 030053 / 2024

    The Supreme Court allowed displaced meat vendors to be allotted fixed spots in a temporary fish market in Panjim, Goa after City Corporation's demolition of the building where the vendors were lessees for over 30 years.

    The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the challenge to the order of the Bombay High Court which directed the Corporation of the City of Panaji(CCP) to construct and maintain public markets and slaughterhouses, and to regulate all markets and slaughterhouses in the interim period, in the public interest.

    Don't Drag Each & Every Armed Forces Member Who Gets Disability Pension To Court; Evolve Policy On Appeals: Supreme Court To Union Govt

    Case Details: Union of India and Ors. v. Sgt Rohitash Kumar Sharma (Retd)

    The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal filed by the Union of India against an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granting disability pension to a retired radio fitter, remarked that the government should not drag retired members of the armed forces to court in such cases.

    Several appeals are being filed by the Union of India in this court challenging the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal wherein the benefit of disability pension has been granted to members of the armed forces when they are invalidated after working for several years. Each and every member of the armed forces who gets the relief of grant of disability pension from the tribunal need not be dragged to this Court”, the Court stated.

    A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called for a policy decision by the centre on which orders of the AFT awarding disability pension should be challenged in the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court Denies Bail To Jharkhand-Based Journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh In UAPA Case

    Case Details: Rupesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12058/2024

    The Supreme Court on January 27 dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the Jharkhand High Court's order dated December 6, 2023, whereby the High Court denied bail to journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 over alleged links to the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist).

    A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court.

    Man Leaves India Despite Passport Being In Court Custody; Supreme Court Asks Centre How He Managed To Leave; Issues Arrest Warrant

    Case Details: Rajyashree Chhokar v. Manish Chhokar

    The Supreme Court was shocked to note that a man, who was facing contempt proceedings arising out of child custody dispute, managed to travel to the USA, although his passport was deposited in the Court.

    The Court had earlier directed him to surrender his passport before it. On January 29, the Court was told that the man had left India.

    “We are amazed as to how can the alleged contemnor/respondent leave for USA or for that matter for any country without a passport, as his passport is in the custody of this Court.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra remarked.

    Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Delhi High Court's Senior Designations

    Case Details: Sanjay Dubey v. The Full Court of The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Delhi, Through The Registrar General & Ors. | Diary No. 3045 / 2025

    The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Writ petition which was filed challenging the Senior Designation of 70 advocates by the Delhi High Court.

    After a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, the petitioner chose to withdraw it.

    Gir Somnath Demolitions: Supreme Court Rejects Application Seeking Permission To Conduct 'Urs' At Dargah Stated To Have Been Existing

    Case Details: Haji Mangrolisha S House v. D.D. Jadeja and Ors., Diary No. 50311-2024

    The Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking permission to conduct Urs between February 1-3 at a Dargah stated to be situated at the Gir Somnath demolitions site.

    A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih dismissed the interlocutory application saying that the "prayer cannot be granted without hearing the main matter". It may be noted that a Special Leave Petition challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay the demolitions is pending in the Supreme Court.

    'No Special Treatment Be Given For Temple Entries', Says Supreme Court While Declining To Entertain PIL Against 'VIP Darshans'

    Case Details: Vijay Kishor Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 700/2024

    The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging the 'VIP' Darshan facility across temples in India. While the Court refused to issue any directions under Article 32, it observed that such 'special treatment' in temples was arbitrary. However, the Court chose to leave it open for the government authorities to look into the issue.

    The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a writ petition seeking the abolition of VIP darshan fees charged by temples across the country.

    'Adoption Deed Relates Back To Adoption', Supreme Court Expresses Prima Facie View; Asks To Consider Application For Inter-Country Adoption

    Case Details: Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14886/2024

    The Supreme Court passed an interim order in a petition seeking the inter-country adoption of two twin children by a 49-year-old single unmarried woman, who is a citizen of the United Kingdom. The woman adopted the children of her brother after his wife died in an accident.

    In this case, the issue raised was that although the woman adopted the two twins on January 9, 2020, and performed Hindu religious ceremonies for the formal adoption as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), the Deed of Adoption was only registered on September 19, 2022.

    An SLP was filed against the Madras High Court's order dated April 17, 2024, whereby the High Court held the petitioner has to secure a sponsorship letter from the authorities in the United Kingdom on the production of which the Indian authorities will issue a No Objection Certificate to take the children to the United Kingdom. In the absence of this, the writ petition was dismissed.

    The petitioner's case was that she was unable to get the No objection certificate from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) because although the adoption took place in 2020, the Deed of Adoption was only registered in 2022.

    A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma prima facie agreed with the arguments put forth by the petitioner.

    "We are prima facie of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submissions."

    Supreme Court Directs Election Commission To Preserve CCTV Recordings Of Pollings In Plea Challenging Increase Of Voters Per Booth

    Case Details: Indu Prakash Singh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., Diary No. 49052-2024

    The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to ensure that video recordings of the polling are not erased during the pendency of the challenge to ECI's decision to increase the number of voters per polling station.

    The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the PIL challenging the Election Commission of India's communication(s) whereby the maximum number of electors per polling station has been increased from 1200 to 1500.

    Supreme Court Modifies Its Judgment, Upholds PG Degrees Of Medical Professionals In WB Who Completed Studies By July 2022

    Case Details: Dr. Priyambada Sharma, Etc. Etc. v. Board of Governors In Supersession of Medical Council of India & Ors. Etc.

    In a major relief for several medical professionals in West Bengal, the Supreme Court modified its judgment, ensuring that those who had completed their studies till July 2022 and were working as Senior Residents will retain their degrees as legal and valid.

    Previously, the Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2022 refused to consider the petitioners' admission in PG Courses (for the 2019-2020 academic year) beyond the cut-off date of May 31, 2019, stating that no sympathy could be shown to them to allow their admission beyond the cut-off date.

    Following this, the petitioners-medical professionals filed a review petition before the Supreme Court.

    The bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan heard the review petition.

    Other Developments

    Union Govt Turns Down Supreme Court's Suggestion For Separate Law On Bail; Says BNSS Provisions Are Adequate

    The Union Government has told the Supreme Court that there is no proposal to bring a separate law on bail as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) are adequate.

    The Supreme Court, in the 2022 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation had recommended to the Union Government to bring a separate Bail Act to streamline the grant of bail. Last year, the Court had asked the Union to inform if a separate bail law was under contemplation.

    In the affidavit filed in response to the Court's queries, the Union Government said that the new criminal law, BNSS, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from July 1, 2024, deals with bail and bail bonds in Chapter XXXV.

    Kuki Organisation Seeks Early Hearing Of Plea In Supreme Court For Probe Against Manipur CM Over Audio Clips

    Case Details: Kuki Organization For Human Rights Trust v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 702/2024

    Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust urged for an early hearing of the plea seeking a court-monitored investigation into certain leaked audio clips which allegedly implicate Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh for instigating ethnic violence in the State.

    Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the Organisation mentioned the matter before the bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.

    Gir Somnath Demolitions: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea For Conducting Urs Between Feb 1-3

    Case Details: Summast Patni Musslim Jamat v. Rajesh Manjhu, State of Gujarat and Ors., Diary No. 45534-2024 (and connected cases)

    In a case related to the Gir Somnath demolitions, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an application seeking permission to conduct Urs at a Dargah stated to be situated there between February 1-3. The same has been listed for hearing on January 31.

    A bench of Justices BR Gavai and SVN Bhatti passed the order, while dealing with petitions seeking contempt action against Gujarat authorities for alleged demolition of Muslim religious and residential places at Gir Somnath in violation of Court's order dated September 17, 2024.

    Supreme Court Hears Concerns Over Allowing Law Graduates To Enter Judicial Service Without Practice As Advocate

    Case Details: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors | W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989

    The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the condition of three years of practice at the Bar in addition to a legal degree needs to be restored to appear for the Civil Judge(Junior Division) exam in light of various issues faced by the High Courts in terms of lack of exposure on the functioning of courts. This requirement was done away with by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association case (2002).

    A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, AG Masih and KV Chandran is currently hearing a writ petition filed by the All India Judges Association in which various issues from judges' pensions to service conditions have been raised. One of the issues on which the deliberation took place through Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar is whether the three years of legal practice should be restored.

    'Mullaperiyar Dam Outlasted 2.5 Times Its Life:' Supreme Court Downplays Dam Break Apprehension, Turns Down Urgency Request

    Case Details: Dr. Joe Joseph and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 880/2020

    While tagging a 2020 PIL relating to the Mullperiyar dam (situated in Kerala but operated by Tamil Nadu) with a connected case pending before a 3-judge bench, Justice Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court dispelled a claim of urgency in the matter noting that the dam has withstood 130 yrs since its construction (though its life was 50 yrs).

    Justice Roy played down the apprehension raised by the petitioners (certain private individuals from Kerala) of a dam break if the matter remains pending for long. He pointed out that the dam has been there for over 130 years and can outlast more monsoons while awaiting a court hearing.

    Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On PIL To Make e-KYC Process Accessible For Acid Attack Survivors & Persons With Blindness/Low Vision

    Case Details: Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025 & Pragya Prasun v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 289/ 2024

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday(January 28) reserved judgment on the two writ petitions seeking directions or guidelines for persons with blindness/low vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC.

    A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the two petitions. It directed the parties to file written submissions that address the following: 1. Guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India 2. Deficiency and loopholes in those guidelines and 3. Suggestions/Recommendations to make it more meaningful.

    “How Can There Be Interim Stay On Discharge? Tomorrow, Courts Will Grant Interim Stay On Acquittal!” Supreme Court Questions HC's Order

    Case Details: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

    The Supreme Court questioned the implications of Delhi High Court's decision to grant an ex parte stay on order discharging a murder accused, observing that it effectively subjects the accused to trial without even setting aside the discharge order.

    A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea filed by Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir, challenging the Delhi High Court's order that stayed his discharge in a murder case and directed him to surrender.

    Justice Abhay S. Oka questioned the rationale behind staying an order of discharge, stating that it allowed the trial to proceed even though the discharge order had not been set aside.

    He questioned, “Is it not the effect of staying the discharge order that the trial court is free to proceed with the trial even before discharge is set aside? HC has rendered the release of the accused invalid.” He further remarked, “How there can be interim stay of order of discharge? Tomorrow court will grant interim stay of order of acquittal. Tomorrow someone will stay order of acquittal and say that person should be taken into custody!”

    'No Rationale': Supreme Court Questions Provision Denying Maternity Leave If Adopted Child Is Above 3 Months; Reserves Judgment

    Case Details: Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 960/2021

    The Supreme Court reserved judgment in a writ petition challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961(as amended in 2017) as per which a woman who adopts a child is entitled to maternity benefit only if the adopted child is aged less than three months.

    A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing the challenge to the specific provision relating to an adoptive mother, which was inserted in 2017. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adoption regime is governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. She argued that the problem with Section 5(4) is that if an adoptive mother adopted a child above the age of 3 months, she would not be entitled to maternity benefits of 12 weeks.

    RG Kar Case | Don't Treat Period Of Protest As 'Leave' For Doctors Who Joined Duty After August 22, 2024: Supreme Court

    Case Details: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital Kolkata and related issues | SMW(Crl) 2/2024

    The Supreme Court clarified its earlier order relating to doctors' protest against the RG Kar Rape-Murder incident and said that doctors who have returned to duty after August 22, 2024, should not be treated as absent and should be considered on duty.

    The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the suo motu case of the brutal rape and murder of a doctor in RG Kar Hospital in Kolkata that occurred on August 9.

    'Why Beat Him In Custody?' Supreme Court Questions TN Police; Rejects Claim That Custodial Torture Led To Death

    Case Details: Indira v. State Human Rights Commission | SLP(C) No. 7800-7802/2024

    The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the Madras High Court's order which held that the death of the present petitioner's husband was not caused due to custodial torture.

    A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP on the grounds that the facts of the present matter remain hazy. Despite the highly disputed facts, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that it cannot be conclusively negated that the deceased was not manhandled by the police. He also questioned why the police have to resort to such measures.

    Supreme Court Reserves Orders On 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 reserved orders on 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.

    The matter was before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which indicated that balancing of some legal provisions involved in the case was required and it will do the same.

    'Before Us For Political Mileage?': Supreme Court To BJP MLA Challenging Karnataka Govt's Withdrawal Of CBI Consent To Probe DK Shivakumar

    Case Details: Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 12282/2024

    Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court questioned the political motives of BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal behind assailing withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.

    "Why you are, for political mileage, before the Supreme Court? Go there in political field and contest the election...", the judge remarked.

    The comment came while a bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with Yatnal's challenge to the Karnataka High Court's judgment which dismissed his petition questioning the withdrawal of consent for the CBI. A plea by CBI challenging the withdrawal of consent was also listed before the Court.

    Supreme Court Issues Notice On Kashmir Advocates Association's Plea For Bar Council In J&K

    Case Details: Kashmir Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(C) No. 66/2025

    The Supreme Court today(January 31) issued notice to the Union of India and the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in an Article 32 writ petition filed by the Kashmir Advocates Association seeking the Bar Council of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

    A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta after very briefly hearing Advocate Javed Shaikh, issued notice.

    Supreme Court Asks NIA About Time Needed To Commence Trial In UAPA Case Over 2020 Bengaluru Riots

    Case Details: Shabbar Khan v. National Investigative Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 17214/2024

    The Supreme Court asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) how much time it will take for the trial court to frame charges and commence trial against accused in the 2020 Bengaluru riots case.

    The Court was considering a bail petition field by Shabbar Khan who has been charge-sheeted in a UAPA case related to the riots which happened in Bengaluru on August 11, 2020, reportedly over a Facebook post where it was alleged that derogatory comments were made on Prophet Muhammad.

    As per the NIA, the members of the Social Democratic Party of India(SDPI), the political wing of the proscribed Popular Front of India, were involved. Reportedly, the members conspired to mobilise a larger crowd which gathered at D.J. Halli and KG Halli police stations on the night of August 11 to attack police personnel and cause vandalism to the public and police station vehicles.

    Before a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, the Counsel for the petitioner questioned the long period of incarceration of 4 years and 1 month.

    Supreme Court Issues Notice On UP MLA Abbas Ansari's Bail Plea In UP Gangsters Act Case, Leaves It Upon HC To Decide Virtual Hearing Issue

    Case Details: Abbas Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 1091/2025

    The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari seeking bail in a criminal case registered against him under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

    A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, upon hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for Ansari), who argued that an FIR based on same allegations was earlier quashed and the allegations pertain to running of a gang at Chitrakoot, which is 450 kms away from Kasganj - where Ansari has been since last 1.5 yrs.

    PIL Filed In Supreme Court For Grant Of School Admissions, Govt Benefits To Rohingya Families

    Case Details: Rohingya Human Rights Initiative (Rohringya) and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 57/2025

    A public interest litigation has been initiated before the Supreme Court seeking grant of school admissions and government benefits to Rohingya refugee families without insistence on Aadhaar cards and irrespective of citizenship status.

    The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which posted it on February 10, asking the petitioner to provide information regarding the residential status of the Rohingya refugee families.

    'Lot Of Lobbying Taking Place For Senior Advocate Designation, Judges Shouldn't Make Recommendations': Indira Jaising To Supreme Court

    Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

    Senior Advocate Indira Jaising raised concerns before the Supreme Court regarding lobbying and judges' recommendations influencing the designation of Senior Advocates.

    Jaising pointed out that she had filed the petition, in which the 2017 three-judge bench judgment governing Senior Advocate designations was passed, in order to end “unlimited lobbying” in the system.

    A lot of lobbying is taking place even under the current system (after the judgment). This petition was filed to end the system of lobbying. Your lordships will have to stop this”, she highlighted.

    Also from the hearing - Judges Reluctant To Express Themselves In Full Court: Amicus S Muralidhar Suggests Secret Ballot System For Senior Advocate Designation

    'Should Eminent Lawyers Be Subjected To Interview? Can Standing Be Assessed In 10 Mins?': Supreme Court Questions Senior Designation Process

    Plea In Supreme Court Challenges BSA's Electronic Evidence & Confession Provisions And BNS Sections

    Case Details: Vinod Kumar Boinapally v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 40/2025

    Former MP Vinod Kumar Boinapally has moved the Supreme Court challenging certain provisions of the BNS and the BSA, which replaced the erstwhile penal laws viz. the IPC and the Evidence Act.

    The matter was listed before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which tagged it with other similar cases coming up on February 5 (Ref: Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India, Mannagurdi Bar Association v. Union of India).

    Plea Filed In Supreme Court For Issuance Of OBC Certificates To Children Of Single Mothers Without Certificate From Paternal Side; Notice Issued

    Case Details: Santosh Kumari v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 55/2025

    The Supreme Court issued notice on a PIL seeking amendment in the guidelines for grant of OBC (Other Backward Classes) certificates to children of single mothers, so that the same can be issued based on OBC certificates of the single mothers, without insistence on certificates from the paternal side.

    A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, seeking the response of Delhi government as well as Union of India.

    Next Story