Quarterly

Naresh Potteries Vs Aarti Industries 2025 INSC 1 – S 482 CrPC – S 142 NI Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 ; Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138,142 –When the company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant should necessarily be the company which is to be represented by an authorised employee and in such a situation, the indication in the complaint and the sworn statement, oral or by affidavit, to the effect that complainant is represented by an authorised person who has knowledge, would be sufficient- if there is any dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorised or it is to be demonstrated that the complainant had no knowledge of the transaction, and as such could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused person to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. However, dismissal or quashing of the complaint at the threshold would not be justified-The issue of proper authorisation and knowledge can only be an issue for trial- (Para 21) – What can be treated as an explicit averment, cannot be put in a straightjacket but will have to be gathered from the circumstance and manner in which it has been averred and conveyed, based on the facts of each case. (Para 33)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 – The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great caution and further that inherent powers should not be used to interfere with the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to scuttle a fair investigation or prosecution. (Para 34)

Summary: High Court quashed the summoning order observing that the power of attorney holder did not have personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to the criminal proceedings as there was no specific pleading to that effect in the letter of authority and the affidavit of the power of attorney holder under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The averments made make it wholly clear that Sh. Neeraj Kumar possessed personal knowledge of the facts of the matter at hand and was well-equipped and duly authorised to initiate criminal proceedings-That beside the fact that it would always be open for the trial court to call upon the complainant for examination and cross- examination, if and when necessary, during the course of the trial. As such, a peremptory quashing of the complaint case by the High Court is completely unwarranted and that too on an incorrect factual basis.

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gagan Narang 2025 INSC 2 – S 63 Electricity Act – Interpretation Of Statutes

Electricity Act, 2003- Section 63- Section 63 does not restrict invoking of the provisions of Section 63 only to Discoms or generating companies- When the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are read in harmony with the provisions of Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, the powers of the State Commission cannot be curtailed by interpreting that the same can be invoked only by the Discoms or the generating companies. (Para 44)

Interpretation Of Statutes –The first and foremost principle of interpretation is that of literal interpretation. When the statute read in a literal manner is capable of giving meaning to the provision that the legislation intended to and does not lead to any absurdity, it is not permissible by judicial interpretation to add, alter, or delete any words to such a statute. (Para 30)

Summary: APTEL held that MCD was neither a distribution licensee nor a generating company and thus it had no jurisdiction to file an application under Section 63 of the Act for adoption of tariff- Allowing appeal, SC observed: when the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are read in harmony with the provisions of Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, the powers of the State Commission cannot be curtailed by interpreting that the same can be invoked only by the Discoms or the generating companies.

Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz vs Government Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 3 – Art. 300A Constitution – Right To Property 

Constitution of India – Article 300A – Though Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional right. A person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same. (Para 49) 

B. N. John Vs State Of U.P 2025 INSC 4 – S 195 CrPC – Ss 186,353 IPC – Ss 154,55,195 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 195 – Complaint which is required to be filed under Section 195 (1) of the CrPC, can only be before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate who does not have the power to take cognizance of an offence or try such cases. (Para 19)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 186 ; Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 195 – When no complaint was filed by the concerned public servant as contemplated under Section 195 (1)(a) CrPC, CJM could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 186- A written complaint by a public servant before the court takes cognizance is sine qua non, absence of which would vitiate such cognizance being taken for any offence punishable under Section 186. (Para 15-21) [In this case, complaint was filed before the City Magistrate and not before a Judicial Magistrate- SC held: the requirement of Section 195 (1) of the CrPC was not fulfilled.]

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 353- Not only obstruction but actual use of criminal force or assault on the public servant is necessary- While “disturbance” could also be caused by use of criminal force or assault, unless there are specific allegations with specific acts to that effect, mere allegation of “creating disturbance” cannot mean use of “criminal force” or “assault” within the scope of Section 353 of the IPC. (Para 33)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154- Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed. (Para 25) If vital and crucial facts are missing from the FIR of which the complainant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of these facts in the case by the complainant would be an afterthought as has happened in the present case. (Para 27)

Constitution of India – Article 141 – In limine dismissal of a Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. (Para 40)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 155(4)- If in the course of the investigation of a cognizable offence, the ingredients of a non-cognizable offence are discovered then the police could have continued the investigation without the written complaint to the court or the order of the court in respect of such non-cognizable offence, as it would also be deemed to be a cognizable offence under Section 155(4) of the CrPC, but where the investigation of the cognizable office itself suffers from legal infirmity and without jurisdiction from the initial stage, the entire investigation would be vitiated. (Para 37)

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division vs Mohd. Syeed Ather 2025 INSC 5 – Land Laws

Summary – Appeal against HC judgments in writ petitions challenging proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – SC allowed appeal and remanded for re-consideration.

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajani Sahoo 2025 INSC 6 – Motor Accident Compensation – Police Records

Motor Accident Compensation Claims -The question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible

Lilian Coelho vs Myra Philomena Coalho 2025 INSC 7 – Testamentary Suit

Summary – High Court (Division Bench) reversed the Single Bench judgment in a Testamentary Suit- Allowing appeal, SC observed:A reasoned judgment of a Single Judge cannot be interfered with without a deep consideration-In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the Division Bench in accordance with law. 

Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 8 – Art. 226 Constitution – S 482 CrPC – Quashing

Constitution of India – Article 226 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 -Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Summary – HC refused to quash FIR against a foreign national- Allowing appeal,SC observed: A perusal of the subject FIR would reveal that the same did not disclose commission of offence(s) as alleged without anything being added to the recitals thereof. That apart, besides the vague allegations, the rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against, the appellant. In such circumstances, asking the appellant to stand the trial will be nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, non-interference by refusing to exercise the power to quash the FIR and further proceedings based thereon, would result in miscarriage of justice.

Ajay Singh vs Khacheru 2025 INSC 9 – Art. 226 Constitution

Constitution of India – Article 226 – While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.(Para 17)

Leela vs Muruganantham 2025 INSC 10 – S 63 Indian Succession Act – Will

Indian Succession Act – Section 63 – Will – Mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. (Para 20) – Th88e propounder of the Will has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature out of his own free will. (Para 23)

State, Central Bureau Of Investigation vs A. Satish Kumar 2025 INSC 11 – DSPE Act

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Whether merely because Central Government employee/Central Government Undertaking employee works within the territory of a particular State, to register an FIR by the CBI in connection with commission of an offence under a Central Act whether consent from the State Government concerned is required or not? [This question is answered in the negative] (Para 25- 28)

Dalip Ram vs State of Punjab 2025 INSC 12 – Land Laws

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – ‘Lease’ and ‘allotment’ are different and a person who got possession of subject land by way of lease cannot be heard to challenge the title or ownership of the Panchayat concerned from whom it got the land on lease. (Para 44)

Practice and Procedure – Non-framing of issues by itself will not make a decision a nullity, if the parties to the lis understood and adduced evidence on the issues actually involved in the matter. (Para 23)

Jayshree Kanabar vs State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 13 – MCOCA – Bail

Summary: MCOCA accused granted bail by HC- Allowing appeal, SC observed: It is a fact that the grant of bail was not in exercise of power of the High Court as a constitutional Court on the ground of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. It is also a fact that the case on hand involves allegation of commission of offences of murder punishable under Section 302, IPC.

Sri Mahesh vs Sangram 2025 INSC 14 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Relation Back Principle – Gift

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956- Section 16 – wherever any document registered under the law is produced before the court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the court should presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said statute unless and until it is disproved. It was further held therein in view of Section 16 of the Act of 1956 that it would be open to the persons who challenge the registered deed of adoption to disprove the same by taking independent proceedings. (Para 16)

Relation Back Principle- Adoption by a widow would relate back to the date of death of her husband, creating an immediate coparcenary interest in the joint property, meaning that the adopted child is treated as if they were born to the deceased husband, thus entitled to inherit his property. (Para 18)

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 122 – Two things are necessary to constitute a valid gift, namely, (i) an offer and, (ii) its acceptance. (Para 27)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand 2025 INSC 15 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation –Monthly income could be fixed taking into account the tax returns only if the details of payment of tax are appropriately brought into evidence so as to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income in accordance with law.(Para 8) In the case of self-employed persons too, fixation of monthly income, taking the factor of future prospects cannot be denied. (Para 12) 

Precedent – When in a decision this Court enunciates a principle of law, it is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency thereof because it is to be assumed that what is enunciated by this Court is, in fact, the law from inception- We shall not be understood to have held that pursuant to enunciation of a principle of law, matters that attained finality shall be reopened solely for the purpose of applying the law thus laid. But at the same time, if the matter is pending, then, irrespective of the stage, the principle cannot be ignored. (Para 9) 

Dinesh Kumar Mathur vs State Of M.P. 2025 INSC 16 – Ss 420, 120B IPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 420 – To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved: (i) The representation made by the person was false. (ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. (iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. (iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.- Referred to in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 120B -In order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy which is being hatched and nor is it necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting.- Sections when put into a chargesheet, cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance, there must be a substance- Referred to Bilal Hajar v. State (2019) 17 SCC 451. (Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 197 –Scope and ambit discussed – Referred to Manohar Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 3 SCC 429 ; Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P (1997) 5 SCC 326 ; in A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma (2023) 8 SCC 711. (Para 10)

Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd. vs Andappa (D) 2025 INSC 17 – Litigation

Practice and Procedure -If a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. (Para 11)

Gopal Krishan vs Daulat Ram 2025 INSC 18 – S 63(c) Indian Succession Act – Will

Indian Succession Act, 1925 -Section 63 (c) – The language of Section 63(c)of the Act uses the word ‘OR’. It states that each Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses who have seen the Testator sign or affix his mark on the Will OR has seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator OR has received a personal acknowledgment from the Testator of his signature or mark etc. What flows therefrom is that the witnesses who have attested the Will ought to have seen the Testator sign or attest his mark OR have seen some other persons sign the Will in the presence of and on the direction of the Testator- There is no reason why the ‘or’ employed therein, should be read as ‘and’ – The part of the Section that employs the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will. Such signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and upon the direction of the Testator. (Para 12-14)

Interpretation of Statutes – The word “or” is normally disjunctive while the word “and” is normally conjunctive. Further, it is equally well settled as a proposition of law that the ordinary, grammatical meaning displayed by the words of the statute should be given effect to unless the same leads to ambiguity, uncertainty or absurdity. None of these requirements, to read a word is which is normally disjunctive, as conjunctive herein, are present. (Para 13)

Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 19 – Ss 354,503 IPC – S 482 CrPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 354 – For it to apply, the offence must be committed against a woman; criminal force must be applied against her; and such application of force must be with the intent to outrage her modesty. (Para 12)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 503– For an offence u/s 503 to be established, it must be shown that:- (1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. (2) Such threat must be intentional; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. (Para 13) A mere statement without intention would not attract the offence – For an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention should be clearly visible, and the same is to be established by evidence on record.(Para 13.2-13.3)

Mens Rea – For mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the court. (Para 12.4)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482– While considering an application u/s 482 CrPC, the court cannot conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a minute examination of the record, that there is some substance in the allegations made which could meet the threshold of statutory language. (Para 10)

Urmila Dixit vs Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20 -S 23 Senior Citizens Act

Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23- Tribunals under the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23, cannot order possession to be transferred. (Para 24)

Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23- In Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi – For attracting the application of Section 23(1), the following essentials were expounded: (a) The transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor; and (b) The transferee refuses or fails to provide such amenities and physical needs to the transferor- The two conditions mentioned in Sudesh (supra) must be appropriately interpreted to further the beneficial nature of the legislation and not strictly which would render otiose the intent of the legislature- the relief available to senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject to the condition of being maintained by the transferee. (Para 21-25)

Daljit Singh State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 21 – S 174A IPC – S 82 CrPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 174A – Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C. is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. (Para 8)

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd vs Mathias Oram 2025 INSC 22

Summary : Misc. applications filed by the Secretary-cum-Administrative Nodal Officer, Claims Commission, Bhubaneswar seeking extension of time to finalise the report of village Ratansara- Dismissed.

Hyderabad Cricket Association vs Charminar Cricket Club 2025 INSC 23 – BCCI

Sports -Appointment of the Ombudsman and the Ethics Officer matter- SC observed: Recommendations made by the Single Member Committee which are to be approved/ disapproved in the present case, may be in conflict or not in consonance with the Constitution, Regulations and Guidelines of the BCCI.

Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/S S.R. Engineering Construction vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 24

Arbitration Act 1940 – Section 14(2) –The precise form of what constitutes as a ‘notice’ of filing the award is unspecified. However, interpreted reasonably, what must be required is that the parties come to know about the existence of the award so that any objections to it may be filed. What appears from the usage of the word ‘notice’ is that the parties merely reach a state of awareness about the award and plan their next steps accordingly, and not the imposition of another procedural step- Section 14(2) merely functions to apprise the parties about the existence of the award. (Para 15)

Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd. vs Farooq Ali Khan 2025 INSC 25 – IBC – Writ Petitions

Constitution of India – Article 226 -Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016- Unjustified interference with the proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, breaches the discipline of law- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a complete code in itself, having sufficient checks and balances, remedial avenues and appeals. Adherence of protocols and procedures maintains legal discipline and preserves the balance between the need for order and the quest for justice. The supervisory and judicial review powers vested in High Courts represent critical constitutional safeguards, yet their exercise demands rigorous scrutiny and judicious application. (Para 13-15)

Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 26 – Art. 227 Constitution – Arbitration

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 -Judicial restraint in interfering with matters governed under Part I of the Act relating to arbitration agreement, composition and jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, coupled with the conduct of the proceedings and making, challenge and enforcement of the award – This objection of restraint on the judicial authority is overriding and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. (Para 12) [Context: HC, allowing a petition under Article 227 granted the claimant one more opportunity to cross- examine the other party’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a prayer- Allowing appeal, SC observed: When no perversity was found in the decision of the Tribunal, there was no justification in the order passed by the High Court in interfering with the directions of the Arbitral Tribunal.]

Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 27 – S 319 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 – Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge- sheet can be summoned to face the trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused.

Closure Report – The Court should not keep the closure report pending for consideration for a long time. Such report should be looked into promptly. (Para 20)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 –The principles of law summarised: a. On a careful reading of Section 319 of the CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. b. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence. c. The power of the court under Section 319 of the CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase ‘any person not being the accused’ occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. c. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated- Referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Another (2021) 12 SCC 608.

Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan Vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 28 – Criminal Trial – Legal Maxims

Criminal Trial – On the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc -The accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency. (Para 22)

Criminal Trial – Law relating to material contradiction in witness testimony discussed – Rammi vs State of MP, Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan. (Para 15) – Either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc. (Para 18)

Legal Maxims – “Noscitur a sociis” – The meaning of a word can be determined by the context of the sentence; it is to be judged by the company it keeps. (Para 16) 

Legal Maxims – ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’- False in one thing, false in everything- This principle is foreign to our criminal law jurisprudence- the principle ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not a rule of evidence and if the court inspires confidence from the rest of the testimony of such a witness, it can very well rely on such a part of the testimony and base a conviction upon it. (Para 19) – Only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this Court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. In a given case, it is also open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons. (Para 26)

Crime – Crime creates a sense of societal fear and it affects adversely the societal conscience. It is inequitable and unjust if such a situation is allowed to perpetuate and continue in the society. In every civilized society, the purpose of criminal administrative system is to protect individual dignity and to restore societal stability and order and to create faith and cohesion in the society. The courts in the discharge of their duties are tasked with balancing of interests of the accused on one hand and the state/society on the other. (Para 10)

Atul Tiwari vs Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2025 INSC 29 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation -Jurisprudence on the assessment of compensation to motor accidents’ victims discussed- Money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money can compensate- The basis for assessment of all damages for person injury is compensation. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that victim has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime’s earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. [Referred to Referred to General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs Susamma Thomas , Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi , R.D. Hattangadi vs Pest control (India) Pvt. Ltd. of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd ] (Para 25-35)

Frank Vitus Vs Narcotics Control Bureau 2025 INSC 30 – Foreigners Act

Foreigners Act, 1946 ; Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992- Rule 3 – The authorities under the Act and the Order have no locus to oppose bail application filed by a foreigner unless bail is sought where the allegation is of the offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The impleadment of the Civil Authority or Registration Officer in all bail applications filed by foreigners may result in unnecessary delay in deciding the bail applications- While granting bail to a foreigner within the meaning of the Act, the concerned court shall issue direction to the State or prosecuting agency, as the case may be, to immediately communicate the order granting bail to the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules who, in turn, shall communicate the order to all concerned authorities including the Civil Authorities. If such information is furnished, it will enable the authorities under the Act, the Rules and the Order to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. (Para 6-8)

Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs State Of Goa 2025 INSC 31 – S 482 CrPC – S 415 IPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 415,420 -If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. (Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information Report alleging offence under Section 415, 420 IPC – Allowing appeal, SC observed: The dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute- When there was a dispute over the title, the act of setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.

Bishwajit Dey Vs State Of Assam 2024 INSC 32 – NDPS Act – Seized Vehicle Return

NDPS Act- There is no specific bar/restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle used for transporting narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case- Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case – Consequently, the trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim. However, this power would have to be exercised in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 22-23) 

NDPS Act- Vehicle is a critical piece of material evidence that may be required for inspection to substantiate the prosecution’s case, yet the said requirement can be met by stipulating conditions while releasing the Vehicle in interim on superdari like videography and still photographs to be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the said inventory as well as restriction on sale/transfer of the Vehicle. (Para 28) – Four scenarios in which the drug or substance is seized from a conveyance. Firstly, where the owner of the vehicle is the person from whom the possession of contraband drugs/substance is recovered. Secondly, where the contraband is recovered from the possession of the agent of the owner i.e. like driver or cleaner hired by the owner. Thirdly, where the vehicle has been stolen by the accused and contraband is recovered from such stolen vehicle. Fourthly, where the contraband is seized / recovered from a third-party occupant (with or without consideration) of the vehicle without any allegation by the police that the contraband was stored and transported in the vehicle with the owner’s knowledge and connivance. In the first two scenarios, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would necessarily be arrayed as an accused. In the third and fourth scenario, the owner of the vehicle and/or his agent would not be arrayed as an accused- Consequently, it is only in the first two scenarios that the vehicle may not be released on superdari till reverse burden of proof is discharged by the accused-owner. However, in the third and fourth scenarios, where no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against the owner and/or his agent, the vehicle should normally be released in the interim on superdari subject to the owner furnishing a bond that he would produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Court and/or he would pay the value of the vehicle as determined by the Court on the date of the release, if the Court is finally of the opinion that the vehicle needs to be confiscated. (Para 29-31)

Interpretation of Statutes -The more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. (Para 24)

Geetha V.M. Vs Rethnasenan K 2025 INSC 33 – Service Law- Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules – Transfer

Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958- Rules 27(a) and 27(c) – Seniority to be reckoned from the order of his first appointment and the inter-se seniority be determined as per the date of first effective advice made for his appointment in service, class, category or grade as the case may be. The proviso of Rule 27(a) is merely an exception to the said Rule of maintaining the seniority from the date of appointment in the cases of ‘on request’ and mutual transfer. The said exception does not attract in a case of transfer by way of absorption made by the Government in public interest or in administrative exigencies. Thus, proviso to Rule 27(a) is an exception to the transfer on administrative grounds in public interest. (Para 37) – the transfer by way of absorption on exercise of option as specified in Appendix I and Appendix II contained in G.O. dated 25.10.2008 does not attract the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules, which only deals with the transfer on request or on mutual request. Thus, the action taken in public interest due to administrative exigency even on option is different than the action done on request. In our view, the proviso to Rule 27(a) does not attract in case of a transfer by way of absorption done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the Government. Therefore, transfer by way of absorption in public interest cannot be equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as specified in proviso to Rule 27(a) or applied mutually. (Para 47)

Service Law – Transfer – The transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest. It cannot be disputed that the Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of an employee. Simultaneously, if employee makes a request due to some hardship and if the authority or the Government as the case may be is satisfied, it may post such employee as per request, but such transfer cannot be termed as transfer in public interest because it is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the public administration- If transfer is by absorption, then such employee becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees. In other words, absorb clearly indicates to suck up, to imbibe to draw as a constituent part and consume. (Para 39-42)

Service Law- Option & Request – ‘Option’ gives a right to choose with freedom of choosing amongst the choices presented to the person concerned, whereas a ‘request’ is the desire of a person to be granted something by asking or is a demand or requirement of the employee. (Para 46)

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 34 – Vicarious Liability – Company Directors

Principle Of Vicarious Liability – There is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides so. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a company can be made an accused, if the statute provides for such liability and if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. The primary responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable. For fastening criminal liability on an officer of a company, there is no presumption that every officer of a company knows about the transaction in question. (Para 13) Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties. (Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 156(3), 200 –When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint. (Para 15)

Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 – Section 4,19- The complaint lodged by the Range Forest Officer under Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Act- SC held: There are no allegations worth the name in the complaint that the three appellants before us are directly responsible for uprooting of the trees with the aid of Bulldozers or JCB machines or causing damage to the environment- The impugned complaint and order taking cognizance of the said complaint quashed.

Abdul Nassar vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 35 – Rape and Murder Case – Death Sentence – Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows: (i). The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness’s evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. (ii). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. (iii). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (iv). The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. (v). The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. (Para 30)

Summary: Supreme Court upheld conviction of man accused of rape and murder of 9 year old girl in 2012 – the question of execution of death sentence awarded to the appellant rendered otiose, considering the fact that he has passed away during pendency of appeal.

Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai vs Century Textiles And Industries Limited 2025 INSC 36 -Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act

Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 – Section 48(a) and 51(2) – Under general provisions, the lessee has to leave the premise on completion of the period of lease, however, it will have a right to get the conveyance executed at the end of the lease, provided there has been no default, after paying the cost of the said premise- the interplay between Sections 48(a) and 51(2) of the 1925 Act is resolved through a construction that acknowledges the necessity of leaving the premises in good condition at the expiration of lease, while recognizing that a conveyance can be contemplated only where such a course is unequivocally aligned with the lease terms and the statutory framework as a whole. (Para 52)

Interpretation of Statutes – No provision of a statute should be rendered nugatory or superfluous. A statute must be construed as a coherent whole, ensuring that each part has meaningful content and that the legislative scheme remains workable. Where two provisions appear to be in tension, the proper course is to adopt a construction that reconciles them, allowing both to operate and giving effect to the underlying legislative intent. (Para 48)

Constitution of India – Article 226- Delay and laches being non-condonable while filing petition – Discussed. (Para 58- 62)

H. N. Pandakumar vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 37 – Misc. Application For Compounding After SLP Dismissal

Summary: Miscellaneous Application seeking direction for compounding the offense under Section 326 IPC based on a compromise reached between the parties after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition– Allowing the application, SC observed: While the offense under Section 326 IPC is non- compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the exceptional circumstances of this case, including the voluntary settlement between the parties, warrant the exercise of this Court’s inherent powers to give effect to the compromise- The conviction recorded by the court’s below is confirmed, however, the sentence of one year RI is reduced to the period already undergone.

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 vs Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 38 – S 2(47) Income Tax Act 

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 2(47) –The reduction in share capital of the subsidiary company and subsequent proportionate reduction in the shareholding of the assessee would be squarely covered within the ambit of the expression “sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset” used in Section 2(47) the Income Tax Act, 1961- Relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. While the taxpayer continues to remain a shareholder of the company even with the reduction of share capital, it could not be accepted that there was no extinguishment of any part of his right as a shareholder qua the company – A company under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 has a right to reduce the share capital and one of the modes which could be adopted is to reduce the face value of the preference share- When as a result of the reducing of the face value of the share, the share capital is reduced, the right of the preference shareholder to the dividend or his share capital and the right to share in the distribution of the net assets upon liquidation is extinguished proportionately to the extent of reduction in the capital. Such a reduction of the right of the capital asset clearly amounts to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). (Para 12(c))

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 39

Summary: Appeal filed by Insurance Company -SC directed Appellant to pay interest as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal @ 12% per annum with effect from 06th March, 2010.

Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Department vs Om Prakash Singh 2025 INSC 40 – Service Law

Summary: SC dismissed SLP against HC judgment quashing certain orders passed by the authorities. 

Shri Jain Shwetamber Shri Sangh Panjikrit Sanstha vs State of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 41

Summary: SC disposed an appeal while modifying the judgment and decree of the Courts below in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association vs Sri Bala 2025 INSC 42 – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Article 113 Limitation Act – Rejection Of Plaint

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Caselaws discussed (Para 6.1) -Normally the question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact. Hence, usually, on a reading of the plaint it is not rejected as being barred by the law of limitation. However, the above is not an inflexible rule. (Para 8.8) – while considering the question of rejection of the plaint, it is the plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents annexed to the plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint ought to be rejected or not. (Para 8.2)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order VII Rule 13 – Rejection of earlier suit under Order VII Rule 11 does not bar fresh suit on the same cause of action provided the right of action is not barred by the law of limitation. (Para 7.4)

Limitation Act 1963 – Article 113 – If a suit is not covered by any of the specific articles prescribing a period of limitation, it must fall within the residuary article. The purpose of the residuary article is to provide for cases which could not be covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act. The residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not otherwise provided for under the Limitation Act. It prescribes a period of three years from the date when the “right to sue” accrues- The expression “when the right to sue accrues” in Article 113 of the Limitation Act need not always mean “when the right to sue first accrues”. For the right to sue to accrue, the right sought to be vindicated in the suit should have already come into existence and there should be an infringement of it or at least a serious threat to infringe the same – the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for a suit to be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues and not on the happening of an event as stated in Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. (Para 9)

Limitation Act 1963 – Section 9 – Section 9 is based on the general principle that when once limitation has started to run, it will continue to do so unless it is arrested by reason of any express statutory provision. Period of limitation can be extended, inter alia, when cause of action was cancelled such as by dismissal of a suit. Ordinarily, limitation runs from the earliest time at which an action can be brought and after it has commenced to run, there may be revival of a right to sue where a previous satisfaction of a claim is nullified with the result that the right to sue which has been suspended is reanimated. (Para 9.10)

Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das Vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 43 – Juvenile Justice Act

Juvenile Justice Act 2015- Section 9(2) -The plea of juvenility can be raised before any Court, meaning thereby that there is no question of finality in this regard until and unless an application filed, invoking this provision, is determined in accordance with the 2015 Act and the relevant rules. When such a plea is raised, it shall be recognised and cannot be brushed aside in a casual or whimsical manner. A due determination must be made by judiciously considering the material available on record. The Court is expected to travel an extra mile to satisfy its conscience as to whether the case on hand would attract the provisions of the 2015 Act and, for the aforesaid purpose, the process enumerated thereunder will have to be necessarily followed- .Merely because a casual adjudication has taken place, it does not mean that a plea of juvenility cannot be raised subsequently. This is for the simple reason that the plea of juvenility has not attained. finality. So long as the right of a party subsists, one can never say that finality has been attained. In a case where a plea has been raised, but not adjudicated upon, the decision rendered thereunder would not amount to attaining finality. Likewise, when such a plea is not treated as one under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act in compliance with the procedural mandate specified thereunder, an order rejecting such a plea would not be termed as a final one. To put it differently, even assuming a plea of juvenility was raised but not considered appropriately at the time of disposal of a Special Leave Petition/Statutory Criminal Appeal, a Review Petition, or a Curative Petition thereafter, it would not bar a competent Court from deciding the said issue by following due procedure.- If an adjudication is based on due determination, then there may not be any room for another round of litigation. But, in a case where the plea was not treated as an application under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act and, the procedure mandated thereunder was not followed, the principle as aforesaid would certainly apply as the right of raising the plea of juvenility has not ceased and, therefore, subsists. (Para 22)

Constitution of India – Article 32, 226, 72 and 161 – Power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution is not appellate or revisional in nature. It is an executive power travelling on a different channel, which cannot be termed as a power of appeal or review. .A challenge to the exercise of power under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution would involve limited judicial review on grounds such as inadequate application of mind, amongst others. (Para 30-31)

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -Section 9(2) – When a challenge is made to an executive order, with an independent prayer for exercising the power under Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, they being distinct and independent, refusal of judicial review of the former will not obliterate the mandatory duty pertaining to the latter. (Para 32)

Truth, Court and Law – Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools- When procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the Court must find a way to circumvent it. Similarly, when substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate the emergence of the truth, it is the aramount duty of the Court to interpret the law in light of its teleos. Such an exercise is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while considering a social welfare legislation- In its journey, the Court must discern the truth, primarily from the truth, primarily from the material available on record in the form of pleadings, and arguments duly supported by documents. It must be kept in mind that the entire judicial system is meant for the discovery of the truth, it being the soul of a decision. For doing so, a Presiding Officer is expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one. (Para 4-6)

Juvenile Court- Court is expected to play the role of parens patriae by treating a child not as a delinquent, but as a victim, viewed through the lens of reformation, rehabilitation and reintegration into the society – Thus, a Juvenile Court is a species of a parent. A delinquent, who appears before the Court, is to be protected and re-educated, rather than be judged and punished. It is for this purpose, that the Court will have to press into service the benevolent provisions for rehabilitation introduced by the Legislature. A Juvenile Court assumes the role of an institution rendering psychological services. It must forget that it is acting as a Court, and must don the robes of a correction home for a deviant child. (Para 10-11)

Legal Maxims – Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – No one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court. A mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of one’s rightful benefit. It is not the party which commits a mistake, but rather the Court itself. Hence, such a mistake cannot act as a barrier for the party to get its due relief. However, we make it clear that the mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication on the foundational facts. (Para 28)

Chief Revenue Controlling Officer Cum Inspector General Of Registration vs P. Babu 2025 INSC 44 -S 47A Stamp Act

Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Section 47A – Registering Officer, after registration of the document, can refer the same for adjudication before the Collector, if he has reason to believe that there was deliberate undervaluation of the property. Such a reference is not a mechanical act, but the Registering Officer should have a basis for coming to prima facie finding of undervaluation of the property. Duty is enjoined upon the Registering Officer to ensure that Section 47-A(1) does not work as an engine of oppression nor as a matter of routine, mechanically, without application of mind as to the existence of any material or reason to believe the fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper Stamp Duty. The expression ‘reason to believe’ is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer. The belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the section -The word ‘reason to believe’ means some material on the basis of which the department can re-open the proceedings. However, satisfaction is necessary in terms of material available on record, which should be based on objective satisfaction arrived at reasonable (Para 21)

S. Rajaseekaran vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 45 – Golden Hour Scheme – S 162 MV Act

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 162 – The provision made in Section 162 for framing a scheme for providing cashless treatment in the golden hour seeks to uphold and protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution- Central Government directed make a scheme in terms of Sub- Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025. (Para 8)

Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 46 – Probation Of Offenders Act

Summary: Supreme Court allowed appeal by directing the release of the appellant by extending the benefit of Section 4 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Goverdhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 47 – Criminal Trial – Reasonable Doubt 

Criminal Trial – “Reasonable doubt”- It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense (Para 21) -The concept of reasonable doubt has to be also understood in the Indian context, keeping in mind the social reality and this principle cannot be stretched beyond a reasonable limit to avoid generating a cynical view (Para 23) -The requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense. (Para 26)

Criminal Trial – Non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses. (Para 70) the testimony of the police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. (Para 71) Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used. (Para 76)

Constitution of India – Article 136 -Unless the findings are perverse and rendered in ignorance of material evidence, this Court should be slow in interfering with concurring findings. (Para 2)

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs R.K. Pandey 2025 INSC 48 – Arbitration Act – Arbitration Agreement

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 -An arbitration agreement is sine qua non for arbitration proceedings, as arbitration fundamentally relies on the principle of party autonomy; – the right of parties to choose arbitration as an alternative to court adjudication – ‘Existence’ of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for an award to be enforceable in the eyes of law. (Para 20)

Mamta Kaur Vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 49 – Anticipatory Bail

Summary: HC rejected anticipatory bail – Allowing appeal, SC grants anticipatory bail.

State Of Punjab vs Hari Kesh 2025 INSC 50 – S 482 CrPC – S 19 PC Act – Sanction Order Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 19 – High Court quashed Sanction Order – Allowing Appeal, SC observed: Whether the Sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence. Further, as per the Explanation to sub-section (4), for the purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant Sanction.”- High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity. There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order. The High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses- Referred to State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda. (Para 8)

Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam vs Mathew K Cherian 2025 INSC 51 – S 143 Railways Act – S 482 CrPCb

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 143 –Taking active steps, however faithfully, in order to acquire and provide tickets to third parties but without being a railway servant or an authorised agent would attract the expression ‘procure and supply’ as in Section 143 – Section 143 makes no distinction between physical and online sale of tickets and criminalises unauthorised procurement and supply, irrespective of the mode of procurement and supply- Mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets- The net of its coverage is wide enough to encompass regulation of the conduct of ticketing agents and to protect the public from unscrupulous elements trying to defraud them by sale of valueless tickets. (Para 27-29)

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 143 – Section 143 does not criminalise creating multiple user IDs. It penalises the actions of only the unauthorised agents and not unauthorised actions of the authorised agents – Any breach has to be remedied by civil action and not criminal action.

Interpretation of Statutes – No court can refuse to enforce a provision on the sole basis of the provision predating any subsequent development- If it can be demonstrated that a statutory provision is broad enough to envelop the subsequent developments, even if the developments were not envisioned by the legislature, the provision would stay operational. (Para 21) – If the language of the particular statute under consideration is clear and unambiguous, it is not for the courts to add to or delete any words from the statute in the guise of ascertaining what could have been the legislative intent. (Para 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of a criminal proceeding can take place, inter alia, if the first information report does not reveal a crime or if the fact situation be such that continuance of the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process causing injustice to the accused. This power of quashing, however, is not unfettered or unlimited and as the old adage goes – “judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously”. (Para 33)

Vijay Prabhu vs S.T. Lajapathie 2025 INSC 52 – S 12(3) Specific Relief Act – Relinquishment

Specific Relief Act 1963- Section 12 (3)- Relinquishment could be made at any stage of the litigation including the appellate stage. The claim of the plaintiff appellant for grant of benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act not to be rejected on the simple ground that it was not made at the trial stage and had been made for the first time at the appellate stage – The claim can also not be rejected on the short ground that it was not incorporated in the plaint or was not get forth in writing before the Trial Court. (Para 21)

Specific Relief Act 1963 – Section 12 (3)- The words ‘unable to perform’ suggest that the sub-section is applicable only when the party cannot for any reason perform the whole of what he has promised. The inability may arise by any cause whatsoever including any statutory limitations. The inability to perform may arise by— (i) deficiency in quantity of the subject-matter, or (ii) variance in quality, or (iii) defect in title; or (iv) some legal prohibition; or (v) other causes- The expression ‘considerable part’ implies that the part which will be left unperformed is either large as regards quantity or as regards quality. In other words, it is material and not insignificant, so that a reasonable objection can be taken by the promisee to accept performance. The phrase ‘does not admit of compensation’ implies that there is no data for ascertaining a fair and reasonable amount as the money value of the difference between what can be performed and the express subject-matter of the contract. The amount need not be mathematically accurate. If a reasonable estimate of the amount as the money value can be made, it will not be a case where the compensation is unascertainable. (Para 10-13)

H.Guruswamy vs A. Krishnaiah 2025 INSC 53 – S 5 Limitation Act – Condonation Of Delay

Limitation Act 1963- Section 5 –While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay – The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time- Concepts such as “liberal approach”, “Justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation- The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not- The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. (Para 13-17) 

NBCC (India) Ltd vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 54 – S 18 MSMED Act – Referred To Larger Bench

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18 – Whether an MSME cannot make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the Act if it is not registered under Section 8 of the Act before the execution of the contract with the buyer? – Section 18 is not restrictive and is a remedy for the resolution of disputes, and as such, it is kept open-ended to enable ‘any party’ to refer the dispute to seek redressal. For the reasons to follow- Rejected the submission that ‘any party to a dispute’ is confined to a ‘supplier’ who has filed a memorandum under Section 8 of the Act- Issue referred to larger bench.

Constitution of India – Article 141 – Supreme Court performs the twin functions of decision-making and precedent-making. A substantial portion of our jurisdiction under Article 136 is reflective of regular appellate disposition of decision making. Every judgment or order made by this Court in disposing of these appeals is not intended to be a binding precedent under Article 141. Though the arrival of a dispute for this Court’s consideration, either for decision-making or precedent-making is at the same tarmac, every judgment or order which departs from this Court lands at the doorstep of the High Courts and the subordinate courts as a binding precedent. (Para 28)

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato 2025 INSC 55

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125(4) – Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the istinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125- Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings. (Para 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.

My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 56 – S 34(3) Arbitration Act -S 4 Limitation Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996- Section 34(3) ; Limitation Act 1963 – Section 4 ; General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 10 – Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA.- Section 4 of the Limitation Act benefits a party only when the “prescribed period’’, i.e. the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) expires on a court holiday. In such a situation, the application under Section 34 will be considered as having been filed within the limitation period if it is filed on the next working day of the court- Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to the aid of the party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the court was working. The 30-day condonable period expiring during the court holidays will not survive and neither Section 4, nor any other provision of the Limitation Act, will inure to the benefit of the party to enable filing of the Section 34 application immediately after reopening- Since Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the ACA, the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies. (Para 35)

Premshila Kuer vs Dr. Amrendra Narayan Yadav & Connected Cases – 2025 INSC 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 68 – Service Law

Summary: Contempt Petitions aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others” disposed.

State Of West Bengal vs PAM Developments Private Limited 2025 INSC 69 – Ss 12, 80 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 12 & Order XXIII Rule 1 – No suit lies on the same cause of action if the plaintiff has abandoned their claim – This principle is not attracted when the circumstances give rise to a continuous cause of action resulting in a situation where both the amendment applications were filed at different points of time and the former was not adjudicated on merits. – A cause of action is continuing when the act alleged to be wrongful is repeating over a period of time, and consequently extending the limitation period. Cause of action is a bundle of facts giving rise to a legal right. (Para 21-24) When subsequent events form a continuous cause of action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not change the nature and character of the Civil Suit. (Para 22)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 80 – When amendment sought amounts to a continuous cause of action and maintains the nature and character of the suit and to that extent, Section 80 of the CPC is irrelevant. (Para 26)

Dr. Sharmad vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 70 – Service Law – KS & SSR

Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Rule 10 is entirely irrelevant and immaterial for appointment on promotion in the Administrative and Teaching Cadres of the Medical Education Services – Rule 10(ab) (Para 20)-‘Recruitment Rules’ is used in Rule 10(ab) as an alternative to Special Rules, without the same being defined. To understand what ‘Recruitment Rules’ would mean in the context, one may simultaneously read Rule 10(a)(i) extracted supra – Without ‘Recruitment Rules’ being defined, it can take colour from Rule 10(a)(i) and be understood to mean and include executive orders of the Government in a case where Special Rules are absent- in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken. (Para 13)

Interpretation of Statutes – No word, no phrase and no expression used in a legislation should be excluded as surplusage, while the courts embark on a course of interpretation. (Para 20) – The intention of the rule framer has to be assessed on both parameters i.e. the words used and that of necessary implication. (Para 26)

Legal Maxim – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – Whatever has not been included has impliedly been excluded. (Para 22)

Ram Pyarey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh – 2025 INSC 71 – S 113B Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 113B- When the Courts below want to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the condition precedent is that there has to be first some cogent evidence as regards incessant harassment. In the absence of any cogent evidence as regards harassment or abetment in any form like aiding or instigating, the court cannot straightaway invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the commission of suicide. (Para 13)

Dharmendra Kumar Singh vs Hon’ble High Court Of Jharkhand 2025 INSC 72 – Judicial Service

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rule, 2001 – High Court dismissed writ petition filed by judicial officers- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The suitability of each candidate has to be tested on his own merit and a comparative assessment cannot be made and the promotion cannot be solely based upon merit list- Referred to Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta Vs. High Court of Gujarat 2024 SCC Online SC 972- When the appellants have successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement in the merit list. (Para 3-5)

Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited 2025 INSC 73 – Order II Rule 2 CPC

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908- Order II Rule 2 – i.The object of Order II Rule 2 is to prevent the multiplicity of suits and the provision is founded on the principle that a person shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. ii. The mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. It must not be misunderstood to mean that all the different causes of action arising from the same transaction must be included in a single suit. iii. Several definitions have been given to the phrase “cause of action” and it can safely be said to mean – “every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court”. Such a cause of action has no relation whatsoever to the defence that may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief which is prayed for by the plaintiff but refers to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. iv. Similarly, several tests have been laid out to determine the applicability of Order II Rule 2 to a suit. While it is acknowledged that the same heavily depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, it can be said that a correct and reliable test is to determine whether the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit. Additionally, if the evidence required to support the claims is different, then the causes of action can also be considered to be different. Furthermore, it is necessary for the causes of action in the two suits to be identical in substance and not merely technically identical.v. The defendant who takes shelter under the bar imposed by Order II Rule 2(3) must establish that (a) the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (b) in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; and (c) being thus entitled to more than one relief, the plaintiff, without any leave obtained from the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed. vi. The defendant must also have produced the earlier plaint in evidence in order to establish that there is an identity in the causes of action between both the suits and that there was a deliberate relinquishment of a larger relief on the part of the plaintiff. vii. Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of inferential reasoning. (Para 47) – The stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief which was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit. (Para 51)

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908- Order VII Rule 11(d) and Order II Rule 2 – Before rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the Courts must ensure that the plaint is read as a whole and its entire averments are looked into. A few lines or passages must not be read in isolation and it is imperative that the pleadings are read as a whole for ascertaining the true import of the averments therein. In performing such a holistic reading, it must be deduced whether the causes of action in both the suits are identical in substance in order to sustain a successful plea under Order II Rule 2. It would be a reductive approach to only cull out the cause of action paragraphs from the respective plaints and decide that they disclose the same cause of action on mere comparative overview. (Para 56)

Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh 2025 INSC 74 – Contempt

Summary: Contempt Petitions aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others” disposed.

Rajeeb Kalita vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 75 – Fundamental Right To Toilets

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Toilets / washrooms / restrooms are not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic necessity which is a facet of human rights. Access to proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty (Para 10) -Directions issued: The High Courts and the State Governments / UTs shall ensure the construction and availability of separate toilet facilities for males, females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court premises and Tribunals across the Country. (ii) The High Courts shall oversee and ensure that these facilities are clearly identifiable and accessible to Judges, advocates, litigants, and court staff- Other directions issued. (Para 11)

Access to Justice – Access to justice includes the creation of a pleasant and humanly atmosphere for all the stake holders in the dispensation of justice. (Para 10)

Mahendra Awase vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 76 – S 306 IPC – Suicide Abetment

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 – BNS 2023 – Section 108 –Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution- The trial courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.(Para 20)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 – BNS 2023 – Section 108 – To attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly – instigates any person to do that thing or Secondly – engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly – intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing- In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. To satisfy the requirement of instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide- A word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. (Para 11-18)

Vimal Babu Dhumadiya vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 77 – Art. 32 Constitution

Constitution of India – Article 32 – SC dismissed writ petition seeking a declaration that Bombay HC judgment is illegal for having been passed without hearing the necessary parties by observing thus: 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. (Para 3)

Bharat Aambale vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 78 – Ss 52A, 54 NDPS Act

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses – The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub- section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not. (Para 50)

NDPS Act – Section 52A, 54– Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record (Para 50)

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Burden of proof – The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities- Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 50)

NDPS Act – Section 52A –Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act- the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure. (Para 50)

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Section(s) 42 to 57 form a unique scheme of provisions that prescribe several procedural safeguards and conditions that have to be mandatorily adhered to, right from the process of conducting search till the seizure and recovery of the contraband, its safe-keep and handling, yet it does not mean that a mere delay or non-compliance of the same, would result in the trial being vitiated, or the entire case of prosecution crumbling.(Para 23)

State of Jharkhand vs Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath 2025 INSC 79 – Art. 21 Constitution – Prison Reforms

Constitution of India – Article 21 – The prison administration needs to be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21. It is essential to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. The State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person. His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him. Discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners. Thus, the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently- The State of Jharkhand shall, if not already done, formulate or expedite the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the applicable provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective prison administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison authorities. (Para 17-18)

Prisoners Act, 1900 – Inspector General of Prisons, has discretion to transfer a prisoner from one prison to another or from one class to another. The only caution, we may add, is that such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily-  transfer of prisoners from one jail to another is not a matter of routine and must be approached with circumspection-The transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision and hence, the same cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary and contrary to law. (Para 11-16)

Prisons – Prisons are considered as the ‘tailend’ of the criminal justice system. They have existed since ancient times, where anti-social elements were kept in, for deterrence and retribution. But, in modern days, a prison connotes a correctional mechanism, thereby emphasizing the reform of inmates. Prison life necessitates certain constraints on the freedom of inmates. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the prison authorities to rehabilitate the prisoners into law abiding citizen, besides maintaining security and rule of law in the prison. (Para 3)

Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 –  if the situation necessitates transfer of the prisoner from one jail to another, it can be done by the authority concerned. (Para 14)

U. Sudheera Vs C. Yashoda 2025 INSC 80 – S 100 CPC – Second Appeal – Interim Order

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal -High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100 CPC; and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing substantial question of law. (Para 10.2)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 151 – The High Court cannot use its inherent power under Section 151 in violation of the express mandates in other provisions of the Code. (Para 10.3)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 100 – High Court can proceed to hear a Second Appeal only if the case involves a substantial question of law, implying that when the appeal is taken up for admission, it must satisfy itself that a substantial question of law is involved. Thereafter, the High Court must frame such question and direct the parties to submit their arguments on such question. The scheme of the Code also enables the High Court to hear the parties on any other substantial question of law, not framed by it at the first hearing, but during the course of hearing for the reasons to be recorded. Again, if the court is not satisfied at the first hearing that the case does not involve a substantial question of law, it cannot proceed further. Once such additional question of law is framed during the course of hearing, the parties must be given opportunity to submit their arguments on the other substantial question of law(s) -In some High Courts, there is a practice to order Notice of Motion, whereby even before an appeal is admitted, an opportunity is granted to the respondents therein to contest the case. In such a case, it is implied that the High Court is not satisfied prima facie with the case. Such dissatisfaction could be either for a reason that the case does not involve a substantial question of law or for a reason that in the facts of the case, the question of law, though substantial, would not warrant interference. In such cases, though the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 151 of CPC is generally empowered to grant interim orders to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we are of the opinion, the court cannot grant any interim protection to the appellant, unless the substantial question of law is framed under Section 100 (4) or as per the Proviso. On the other hand, if the High Court is prima facie of the view that the substantial question of law involved would not require much time for disposal, the court is bound to frame the substantial question of law at the stage of admission and then order short notice. (Para 10.3)

Balbir Singh Vs Baldev Singh (D) 2025 INSC 81 – S 28 SRA – Doctrine Of Merger

Doctrine of merger – The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point of time. The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial court- Once the High Court as an appellate court in second appeal renders its judgment it is a decree of the second appellate court which becomes executable hence, the entitlement of the decree holder to execute the decree of the second appellate court cannot be defeated. (Para 28)

Specific Relief Act – Section 28 – The power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it. Although the power to annul the decree exists yet Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree. The court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed. (Para 26)

Specific Relief Act – A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains the control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. The decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree. (Para 25-26)

Bhupal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 82 – S 304B IPC – Dowry Death

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 304B ; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023- Section 80 – For proving the offence of dowry death, the prosecution must prove that (i) the death of the woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances, (ii) the death has occurred within seven years of her marriage, (iii) soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his any relative and (iv) the cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry. (Para 9)

Criminal Trial – Though the Investigating Officer collected the alleged admitted handwriting of the deceased, the said alleged handwriting, along with the letter, were not sent to a handwriting expert to secure his opinion. Therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution. (para 6)

Bhupinderpal Singh Gill Vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 83 – Constitutional Courts – Judicial Review Of Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice

Practice and Procedure – Constitutional Courts – Issuing limited notice at the stage of admission does not bar a Constitutional Court having inherent powers to pass such orders as the justice of the case before it demands to enlarge the scope of a petition/appeal at the stage of final hearing. Any observation that the court may choose to make while entertaining the petition/appeal by issuing limited notice ought to be regarded as tentative. Such observation cannot limit the court’s jurisdiction to consider the controversy, as raised, in its entire perspective. Whether or not the court would enlarge the scope is, however, a question which is largely dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the court seized of the petition/appeal considers that the justice of the case before it demands enlargement of the scope, notwithstanding that a limited notice had been issued earlier, the court’s powers are not fettered particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by the party approaching it. (Para 19)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Disciplinary Proceedings – Administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. (Para 34) Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable. To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee. Be that as it may, there can be no gainsaying that the consequences of violation of a fair procedure, which principles of natural justice embody, in a given situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind that judicial review is not intended to be an appeal in disguise. (Para 35)

Natural Justice – The traditional concept of natural justice comprises of the two rules that prohibit anyone from being condemned unheard and anyone from being a judge of his own cause – In relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. (Para 35)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate 2025 INSC 84 – Ss 4,11A Central Excise Act

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4 – For applicability of clause (a) of Section 4(1), the following conditions must be fulfilled: a. The assessee sells the goods for delivery at time and place of the removal; b. The assessee and the buyer are not related; and c. The price is the sole consideration for the sale- Only if all three conditions are fulfilled, the value of the goods for the purpose of computation of excise duty will be the transaction value. In a given case, if it is not proved that the price was the sole consideration for sale, clause (a) of Section 4(1) would not apply. In that case, clause (b) of Section 4(1) would apply. (Para 23)

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11-A, an extended period of limitation can be invoked when there is a non- levy or non-payment or short levy or short payment of the excise duty by a reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of 1944 Act or the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of duty. (Para 32)

Biswajit Das vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2025 INSC 85 – Art. 136 Constitution – Limited Notice

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals/petitions are not frequently issued by this Court. Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points. In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order. However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. (Para 16)

Laxmi Das vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 86 – S 306 IPC – S 108 BNS – Abetment Of Suicide

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 : Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Section 108 – A remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of Section 306 IPC (Para 14)- When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. (Para 8) [In this case, the accused was mother of the person who was allegedly in a love affair with the deceased – SC quashed proceedings against her]

Jyostnamayee Mishra vs State Of Odisha 2025 INSC 87- Art. 14 Constitution – Negative Equality – Responsible Drafting & Diligent Pleadings

Constitution of India – Article 14 – A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules – Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. (Para 31)

Pleadings – The importance of responsible drafting and diligent pleading – Referred to this observation in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement – Though it is true that the advocates would settle the pleadings and argue in the courts on instructions given by their clients, however their duty to diligently verify the facts from the record of the case, using their legal acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be obliviated. (Para 28.1)

State Of Punjab vs Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner 2025 INSC 88 – Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Royalty – Brick Earth – Ownership Of Land

Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 – Rule 3– Rule 3 provides for exemptions from payment of royalty – Rule 3 does not provide for an exemption in respect of the excavation of brick earth for manufacturing bricks – Once it is shown that under the Mineral Rules, State Government was entitled to levy royalty on the activity of mining of brick earth, the issue of ownership of the said lands becomes irrelevant- owners of the said lands in which the excavation is made are not in the exempted category specified in Rule 3 of the Mineral Rules. (Para 10-13)

General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank vs BSN Prasad 2025 INSC 89 – Disciplinary Proceedings – Bank Officials- Judicial Review

Disciplinary Proceedings – An acquittal in a criminal case is no ground to exonerate a delinquent in disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof differs in these proceeding- (Para 16) the exercise of powers by the disciplinary authority is always subject to principles of proportionality and fair play. (Para 23)

Constitution of India – Article 226 -Adequacy of the evidence adduced during disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. (Para 16)

Bank Officials – Bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct. (Para 17)

Vijay @ Vijayakumar vs State 2025 INSC 90 – S 300 IPC – Exception 1 – Grave and Sudden Provocation

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 300 : Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – Section 101- Exception 1 – Before Exception 1 can be invoked, the accused must establish the following circumstances: (i) there was a provocation which was both grave and sudden; (ii) such provocation had deprived the accused of his power of self-control; and (iii) whilst the accused was so deprived of his power of self-control, he had caused the death of the victim- Sudden -(i) Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word ‘sudden’ involves two elements. First, the provocation must be unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. Secondly, the interval between the provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation- Grave -(ii) A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be accepted by the court. The court has to apply an objective test for deciding whether the provocation was grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is this: “Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?” If the answer is in the affirmative, the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer is in the negative, the provocation is not grave. In this context, the expression ‘reasonable man’ means a normal or an average person. A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction. The reasonable man will vary from society to society. A Judge should not impose his personal standards in this matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the reasonable man or the normal man need not have the same standard of behaviour as the judge himself. The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors. An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses. So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation. On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation- (iii) Loss of self-control – the question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether a particular provocation was grave or not. So, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation, the court is generally prepared to assume that homicide was committed while the accused was deprived of the power of self-control. In some cases, it may be possible for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the murder with a cool head in spite of grave provocation. But such cases will be rare. So, when the accused has established grave and sudden provocation, the court will generally hold that he has discharged the burden that lay upon him under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. (Para 17-26)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 105 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam – Section 108 – It is for the accused who seeks to reduce the nature of his crime by bringing his case under Exception 1, to prove that the provocation received by him was such as might reasonably be deemed sufficient to deprive him of self- control, and that the act of killing took place whilst that absence of control was in existence and may fairly be attributed to it. (Para 27)

Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 2025 INSC 91 – Arbitration Act – S 18 MSMED Act – Art. 226 Constitution

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18 – Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council1 in exercise of power under Section 18 MSMED Act- Questions referred to larger bench: (i) Whether the ratio in in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal – Malkajgiri that a writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court? (ii) If the bar/prohibition is not absolute, when and under what circumstances will the principle/restriction of adequate alternative remedy not apply? (iii) Whether the members of MSEFC who undertake conciliation proceedings, upon failure, can themselves act as arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal in terms of Section 18 of the MSMED Act read with Section 80 of the A&C Act? The first and second question will subsume the question of when and in what situation a writ petition can be entertained against an order/award passed by MSEFC acting as an arbitral tribunal or conciliator.

Constitution of India – Article 226 –The access to High Courts by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not just a constitutional right but also a part of the basic structure. It is available to every citizen whenever there is a violation of their constitutional rights or even statutory rights. This is an inalienable right and the rule of availability of alternative remedy is not an omnibus rule of exclusion of the writ jurisdiction, but a principle applied by the High Courts as a form of judicial restraint and refrain in exercising the jurisdiction. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and the same is not limited by any provision of the Constitution and cannot be restricted or circumscribed by a statute- Writ courts, despite the availability of alternative remedies, may exercise writ jurisdiction at least in three contingencies – i) where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights; ii) where an order in a proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction; or iii) where the vires of an Act is challenged. (Para 13)

Sunkari Tirumala Rao Penki vs Aruna Kumari 2025 INSC 92 – S 69 Partnership Act

Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – Section 69 assumes a mandatory character- a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm and all proceedings arising thereunder, which fall within the ambit of Section 69 would be without jurisdiction- a suit instituted by a plaintiff in respect of a right which was vested in him by virtue of a contract and entered into in his capacity as a partner of a partnership firm, would be void, if such a firm was unregistered. (Para 8-9)

Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 93 – S 25,27,106 Evidence Act – Motive -Village Police Patil – Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 – The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence. (Para 55)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 27 – Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused – In this case, all that the I.O. did was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses, SC held: This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. (Para 49-50)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 25– Extra-judicial confession – By its very nature, extra judicial confession is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance. (Para 41)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 25 ; Maharashtra Village Police Act- Section 14 – Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer. (Para 42)

Criminal Trial – Motive – Motive is a double-edged weapon. Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that too for a serious offence like murder. Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances. (Para 51)

State Of Jharkhand vs Dr. Nishkant Dubey 2025 INSC 94 – Aircraft Act – S 482 CrPC – Ss 336,441,447,448 IPC

Aircraft Act, 1934 – Aircraft Act, 1934 as well as the Rules framed thereunder [including Rule 14(ix) of Airport (Security) Rules, 2011] is a complete Code which deals with safety and security of civil aviation and aerodrome. The Aircraft Act, 1934 also prescribes a special procedure for taking cognizance of any offence punishable under the Aircraft Act, 1934 i.e, the complaint must be made by or with the prior sanction of the Aviation authorities. Section 12B is in the nature of a pre-condition for taking cognizance by a Court- as a complaint can be made/filed by an authorised officer alone under the Special Act i.e. the Aircrafts Act, 1934, before the concerned Court, the local police can only forward the material collected by it during the investigation to such authorised officer. It shall be open to the authorised officer to take a decision in accordance with law with regard to filing or non-filing of a complaint (Para 39-41)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – In exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice- An FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. (Para 30)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 336 – Section 336 IPC seeks to punish a person who does an act rashly or negligently and endangers human life or personal safety of others. To attract Section 336 IPC, the prosecution must allege that the accused did the act in question; that it was done rashly or negligently and that it was such as to endanger the life or personal safety of others. (Para 33)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 441,447 – Every trespass by itself is not criminal. To constitute criminal trespass the prosecution has to allege that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC. Accordingly, the prosecution has to prove that the complainant had possession of the property in question and that the accused entered into or upon the property; or after having lawfully entered unlawfully remained there with the intention (a) to commit an offence; or (b) to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession. In the absence of any such allegation, the offence under Section 441/447 IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 35)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 448- ATC office is not a place used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or a place for the custody of goods, the ingredients of Section 448 IPC are not attracted to the present case (Para 37)

Central Bank Of India vs Prabha Jain 2025 INSC 95 – Ss 17,34 SARFAESI Act

SARFAESI Act – Section 17, 34 – In this case, the plaintiff in her suit has prayed for 3 reliefs: For a declaration that the sale deed executed by one Sumer Chand Jain in favour of Parmeshwar Das Prajapati is illegal (“first relief”) 2. For a declaration that the mortgage deed executed by Parmeshwar Das Prajapati in favour of the Bank is illegal (“second relief”) 3. For being handed over the possession (“third relief”) – Civil Court Rejected the plaint holding that its jurisdiction is excluded by Section 34 SARFAESI Act – HC set aside Civil Court’s order – Dismissing Appeal, SC observed:When reliefs sought in civil suit are in relation to the actions taken prior to the secured creditor stepping into the picture and well prior to the secured creditor invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to grant the declarations sought in the first and the second reliefs. (Para 16) The SARFAESI Act has not been enacted for providing a mechanism for adjudicating upon the validity of documents or to determine questions of title finally- The jurisdiction to declare a sale deed or a mortgage deed being illegal is vested with the civil court under Section 9 CPC – DRT can never have the jurisdiction to decide such civil disputes of title between a third person and a borrower. (Para 18-19)

SARFAESI Act – Section 17(3) – There is no power conferred on DRT to hand over the property to someone who was never in possession. (Para 23)

SARFAESI Act – Section 17 (unamended) –While it is true that Section 17(1) uses the words “any person (including the borrower) aggrieved”, Section 17(3) does not explicitly empower the DRT to restore the possession to anyone other than the borrower. Yes, in a given case, if the borrower has put someone else in possession, then perhaps, it could be contended that under Section 17(3), the DRT’s power to restore possession to the “borrower” would include the power to restore possession to the person who was holding it on behalf of the borrower or claiming through the borrower. However, it cannot be contended that under Section 17(3), the DRT can hand over possession to someone whose claim is adverse to that of the borrower- Under Section 17(3), the DRT has the power to “restore” possession which would mean that it has the power to return possession to the person who was in possession when the bank took over possession. DRT only has power to “restore” possession; it has no power to “hand over” possession to a person who was never in possession when the bank took over possession. (Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order VII, Rule 11 – There cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint -Even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected- If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B. (Para 24-25)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 9- The bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred. Such a provision requires strict interpretation – Court would lean in favour of construction which would uphold the retention of the civil court’s jurisdiction. (Para 43)

Banks – Banks should remain very careful with inadequate title clearance reports, more particularly, when such reports are obtained cheaply and at times for external reasons. This concerns the protection of public money and is in the larger public interest. Therefore, it is essential for the Reserve Bank of India and other stakeholders to collaborate in developing a standardized and practical approach for preparing title search report before sanctioning loans and also for the purpose of determining liability (including potential criminal action) of the Officer who approves loan. Additionally, there should be standard guidelines for fees and costs associated with title search reports so as to ensure that they maintain high quality. (Para 44)

Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 96 – S 54 NDPS Act- Conscious Possession

NDPS Act – Conscious possession – Possession under the NDPS Act should not only be physical but also conscious. Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature- Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness. (Para 21)

NDPS Act – Section 54 – Unless and until the contrary is proved in trials of cases involving offences coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily. Therefore, it is the burden of the prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily. (Para 16)

Baban Shankar Daphal vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 97- Criminal Trial – Interested Witness

Criminal Trial – The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone- In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness “interested” or biased. The term “interested” refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A “related” witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. (para 27-29)

Criminal Trial- Conviction can be based upon the version put forth by the eyewitness and the medical evidence must be considered only for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular evidence. (Para 33)

Criminal Trial- Minor contradictions or inconsistencies in testimony do not necessarily render it unreliable, as long as the core facts remain intact. The role of the court is to discern the truth by considering the evidence in its totality and not by isolating individual inconsistencies to discredit an entire narrative. (Para 35) In order to render any witnesses’ testimony as unreliable, the inconsistencies shall be material ones and of such a nature that they create substantive doubts in the mind of the court towards the story or the chain of events as sought to be established by the prosecution. (Para 38) the benefit of the doubt must be based on rational and cogent grounds. Mere conjectures or hypothetical inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused. (Para 42)

Ruhi Agrawal Vs Nimish S. Agrawal 2025 INSC 99 – Child Custody – Visitation Rights

Child Custody & Visitation – Wife’s appeal against HC order granting specified visitation rights to the husband- Modifying the order, SC observed: We emphasize the need for both parents to cooperate and communicate effectively to ensure the smooth implementation of the visitation arrangement. Mutual respect and collaboration are essential for the child’s well-being- Both parents are reminded of their duty to prioritize the child’s welfare and work collaboratively to create a nurturing and supportive environment for the child. (Para 13-16)

Mohd. Tahir Hussain vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 100 – Interim Bail – Contesting & Campaigning For Election

Summary: Supreme Court delivered split verdict in AIMIM candidate’s plea for interim bail in Delhi Riots case.

Interim Bail – Interim bail is not permissible for the purposes of contesting elections, much less for campaigning-Right to campaign or canvass is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional or a human right. It is not even a right recognized under any statute- The reasons and factors whereunder interim bail may be permitted may include cases where there is death in the family of the accused and the cremation has to take place; to attend the wedding of son/daughter or of any close relative of the accused but such a right has not been recognized on the plea of contesting or canvassing for the election. – The grant of interim bail for contesting elections would mean permitting the accused to cast his/her vote, which would be antithesis to the provisions of Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951- Distinguished Arvind Kejriwal vs ED- There the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Minister and was the President of a national party and therefore, the Court opined that he is one of the main campaigners, which is not the situation in the case at hand. [Para 9-19 of Justice Pankaj Mittal’s order] -I do not doubt the propositions of law eloquently recorded in Brother Mithal’s opinion. -Learned Brother Mithal has rightly opined that a Pandora’s Box cannot be permitted to be opened by letting a horde of convicts and/or undertrial prisoners seek release for the purpose of trying their luck at the electoral hustings. Likewise, the learned ASG’s apprehension that others, whether similarly- situated or not, may seek to (mis)use this Judgment, is not unjustified. (Para 25-34 of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s order)

Vidyawati Construction Company vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 101 – S 16 Arbitration Act – Plea Of Lack Of Jurisdiction

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996- Section 16 – There is a clear bar on raising a plea of the lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submission of the statement of defence. (Para 12-13)

Surendra G. Shankar vs Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd 2025 INSC 102 – Practice and Procedure

Practice and Procedure – Real Estate Appellate Tribunal refused to condone the delay in preferring the appeals – In appeal , HC commented on merits – Allowing appeal, SC observed: When merits of the orders impugned in the appeal was not touched upon by the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court ought not to have commented on the merits.

Venkatesha vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 103 – Ss 361,363 IPC – Kidnapping – TIP

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 361,363- an offence punishable under Section 361 IPC would be made out only when a person takes or entices any minor under the age of 16 years, if he is a male or under 18 years, if female. Section 361 IPC, defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship and Section 363 IPC provides a sentence for the offence of kidnapping a person from lawful guardianship- If the victim was above 18 years at the time of the alleged offence, the provision of Sections 361 and 363 IPC could not have been invoked. (Para 9-12) 

Criminal Trial – Test Identification Parade – While identification by a witness in a given case for the first time in witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the Trial Court, for the first time, would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. (Para 15)

Harshit Harish Jain Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 104 – Maharashtra Stamp Act – CCRA – Review Power

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Chief Controlling Revenue Authority–  A quasi- judicial authority can only exercise such powers as the statute confers. There is no provision in the Act enabling the CCRA to sit in review of its own orders – Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver. The law does not permit a statutory functionary to assume powers not conferred upon it, regardless of how the parties engage in subsequent litigation.

Administrative Law – A measure of discretion or consideration for good faith conduct is not alien to statutory processes that safeguard citizens from unjust enrichment by the State. (Para 11)

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 48 – HC dismissed Writ petition challenging rejection of the Appellants’ claim for refund of stamp duty under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Allowing appeal, SC observeD: the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the un- amended proviso of Section 48(1) of the Act. Their refund application, therefore, cannot be repelled as time-barred merely because the deed’s registration was post-amendment. Equally, the subsequent orders recalling the already sanctioned refund stand vitiated, given the CCRA’s lack of statutory mandate to review its own final orders.

Madhushree Datta vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 105 – Ss 323,503,504,506, 509 IPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 323 – For a conviction under Section 323 of the IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt, i.e., bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused. (Para 16)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 504– Mere act of insulting someone does not fulfil its requirements; the insult must be of such a nature that it provokes the person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in criminal conduct. Therefore, to establish the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on the available material, that there was intentional insult with the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of the public peace or the commission of any other offence. (Para 22) When it is nowhere alleged that this act of using filthy language and insulting the complainant by the appellants, has provoked the complainant to commit breach of public peace or to commit any other offence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 are not satisfied. (Para 24)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 506– There must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. (Para 34)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 509 – It will be essential for this Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, to put it pithily, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman- The term “filthy language,” when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. (Para 27-28)

M. Venkateswaran vs State 2025 INSC 106 – S 498A IPC – S 4 DP Act

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 498A ; Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 – Section 4– Appeal against conviction under 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Disposing appeal, SC held: The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out – The sentence imposed is set aside and substituted with that of the period already undergone- The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 which shall be paid as compensation to complainant.

T. Rajamoni vs Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2025 INSC 107 -Motor Accident Compensation 

 Motor Accident Compensation – The employability of a person with serious head injuries is a circumstance which ought to have been kept in the perspective for determining the loss of income. (Para 11)

Thammaraya vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 108 – Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – TIP 

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence -Conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably towards the accused person’s guilt. The chain of incriminating circumstances must be conclusive and should exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused- A court can convict an accused only if their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and not merely on the possibility of guilt. The gap between “may be guilty” and “must be guilty” is significant, separating uncertain speculations from definitive conclusions. Thus, it is the duty of the prosecution to elevate its case from the realm of ‘may be true’ to ‘must be true’- Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt. (Para 25)

Criminal Trial – Significance of Test Identification Parade(TIP) discussed – in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay and Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh – when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of articles, not conducting a Test Identification held as material omission on part of the Investigating Officer. (Para 24) 

Ramesh Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 109 – Burial Place Dispute 

Summary: HC dismissed Writ petition seeking direction to the State of Chhattisgarh to allow the appellant to bury his father at the same site where his ancestors were buried in the village of Chhindwada – In appeal, SC delivered split verdict – However, it disposed appeal by issuing following directions: (i) The appellant shall conduct the funeral rites and bury his deceased father at the burial ground at village Karkapal. (ii) The respondent-State and its local authorities shall ensure that the appellant and his family are provided with all logistical support for the purpose of transferring the body of the deceased from the mortuary at the Medical College situated in Jagdalpur to the Christian burial ground situated at village Karkapal, if so desired by the appellant. (iii) Adequate police protection shall be accorded in this regard. (iv) The respondent-State and its authorities shall ensure that the burial of the deceased father shall take place at the earliest.

Justice SC Sharma’s judgment – The fact that procedures pertaining to last rites; and ceremonies involved, from a part of the right(s) protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. However, to claim that such right(s) would encompass the unqualified right to choose the “place” of such ceremony (including burial) would prima facie appear to stretch constitutional limits beyond what was envisaged.

Justice Nagarathna’s judgment: It is said that death is a great leveller. It is necessary for us to remind ourselves time and again about this solemn truth(Para 2) – Secularism together with the concept of fraternity, as envisaged under our Constitution, is a reflection of harmony between all religious faiths leading to common brotherhood and unity of the social fabric in the country. It is therefore incumbent on all citizens as well as institutions, whether of governance or otherwise, to foster fraternity amongst the citizens. It is brotherhood and fraternity among citizens which would make the country stronger and more cohesive given the diversity of the land and the need for unity. (Para 22.11)

K. Samba Moorthy vs Sanjiv Chadha 2025 INSC 110 – Contempt Of Court 

Summary: High Court dismissed appellant’s Contempt Petition holding that the orders the violation of which, was complained of, have been duly complied with by the alleged contemnor-respondents – Allowing appeal, SC issued direction to authority to remedy the situation by granting promotion to the appellant from Manager Scale-II to Scale-III from 28.07.2001 and grant him all monetary benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the respective dates the monetary benefits fell due. 

Deen Dayal Tiwari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 111 – Death Sentence Commuted 

Death Sentence – 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 – In this case, the Appellant was convicted for the murders of his wife and four minor daughters -While commuting death sentence, SC observed: We must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances – While the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There is no material demonstrating that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a potentially reformable individual- while the crime is heinous and deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment- IPC, we consider it appropriate to commute the death sentence to one of life imprisonment till his last breath. (Para 21)

Constitution of India – Article 136 – while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, SC possesses the authority to scrutinize not only the conviction of an accused but also the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. (Para 23)

Sentencing – The alternate punishment for offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial conscience of this Court and the High Court. (Para 23)

Jagwant Kaur vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 112 – LPG Distributorship 

Summary : HC dismissed writ petition challenging the allotment of L.P.G. distributorship at Balachaur; applications to which were invited by the Indian Oil Corporation- SC dismissed appeal- Consent, as we discern, would be required only if the land offered in the application is one with either joint ownership or joint lease. Such a jointly owned or jointly leased out property when offered for the distributorship, by one of the co-owners or a co-lessee, then a consent from all the other co-owners or co- lessees would be required. That situation does not arise here.

Somdatt Builders –NCC – NEC(JV) vs National Highways Authority Of India 2025 INSC 113 – Ss 34,37 Arbitration Act 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 34 – a great deal of restraint is required to be shown while examining the validity of an arbitral award when such an award has been upheld, wholly or substantially, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act- Frequent interference with arbitral awards would defeat the very purpose of the 1996 Act (Para 42) – The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 does not sit as a court of appeal over the decision of an arbitral tribunal, further reiterating the proposition that a contract has to be interpreted by the arbitrator who is the chosen judge of the parties. So long as the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one though it may not be the only possible view, there should be no interference by the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. (Para 25) – Interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. (Para 36)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 34 -Public policy of India –It means the fundamental policy of Indian law. Violation of Indian statutes linked to public policy or public interest and disregarding orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. It would also mean that the arbitral award is against basic notions of justice or morality. An arbitral award can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality i.e. where the illegality goes to the root of the matter but re-appreciation of evidence cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality.

Constable 907 Surendra Singh State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114 – S 34 IPC – S 378 CrPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 34 – 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.(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 378 – The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal- the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. (Para 11-12) [In this case, SC restored acquittal of accused]

Ivan Rathinam vs Milan Joseph 2025 INSC 115 – S 112 Evidence Act – DNA Test – S 7 Family Courts Act

Indian Evidence Act – Section 112 -Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’ (Para 70) The contention that ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’ are distinct or independent concepts is a misdirected notion – An ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof- 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 – Access and non-access under Section 112 do not require a party to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had or did not have sexual intercourse at the time the child could have been begotten. ‘Access’ merely refers to the possibility of an opportunity for marital relations – In such a scenario, while parties may be on non-speaking terms, engaging in extra-marital affairs, or residing in different houses in the same village, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the spouses having an opportunity to engage in marital relations- Non-access means the impossibility, not merely inability, of the spouses to have marital relations with each other. (Para 32-33)

Indian Evidence Act – Section 112 – DNA Test – When dealing with the eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, this Court balances the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test.- First and foremost, the courts must, therefore, consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. If that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should the court consider ordering a DNA test. Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties. There are thus, two blockades to ordering a DNA test: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7-8 -Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of a person. However, the Family Court cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on the marital relationship.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 11 –The principle of res judicata is a salutary and pragmatic edict to reinforce the doctrine of finality. When a matter, whether on a question of fact or question of law, has been decided between two parties in a suit and the decision is final, neither party will be allowed to canvass the matter again in a future suit or proceeding. Without this bar, parties would be immobilized for all eternity, due to the uncertainty regarding their rights and entitlements. Res judicata infuses predictability in legal adjudication. The courts are thus, under a bounden duty to enforce this statutory embargo where the facts of the case overwhelmingly satisfy the ingredients of Section 11 of the CPC. (Para 65)

Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 116 – Death Sentence Acquittal – S 65B Evidence Act -Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 65B- Certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record (Para 49) – Objection about Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, not being complied, cannot be taken at the appellate stage since that will deny an opportunity for the prosecution or the opposite party to rectify the defect. It was also held that the documents were not inherently inadmissible in evidence. (Para 40)

Criminal Trial – Extra judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence. Normally it is given to persons who enjoyed the confidence and trust of the accused. (Para 108)

Summary: HC confirmed death sentence of accused in rape and murder case – Allowing appeal, Supreme Court acquitted the accused

S Shobha Vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. 2025 INSC 117 – Art. 226 Constitution – Maintainability Of Writ Petition Against Non-Banking Finance Company

Constitution of India – Article 12, 226 – Although a non-banking finance company is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company- body – It has no duty towards the public. Its duty is towards its account holders, which may include the borrowers having availed of the loan facility. It has no power to take any action, or pass any order affecting the rights of the members of the public. The binding nature of its orders and actions is confined to its account holders and borrowers and to its employees. Its functions are also not akin to Governmental functions. (Para 7) – A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (Para 9)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental- A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.- Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty.-Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body – If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action- According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, “a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit”. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point. (Para 9)

Ajay Malik vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 118 – Domestic Workers’ Rights – Ss 227,320,482 CrPC – S 343, 120B IPC

Protection of rights of domestic workers– Domestic workers in India remain largely unprotected and without any comprehensive legal recognition. As a result, they frequently endure low wages, unsafe environments, and extended hours without effective recourse – Govt. of India directed to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers- We once again repose our faith in the Legislature, and the elected representatives of the Indian people, to take the imperative steps towards ensuring an equitable and dignified life for domestic workers. (Para 41-55)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482- High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. (Para 8)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 343 – This offence requires the satisfaction of two prongs: (i) the voluntary restraint of any person; and (ii) the act being done in a manner such that it prevents the said person from proceeding beyond circumscribing limits. (Para 12)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 120B – principal ingredient of this offence is the agreement to commit an offence.6 The charge of conspiracy must be explicitly evidenced, and should be easily discernable in the acts of the conspiring parties. This Court has also previously held, in no uncertain terms, that conspiracy cannot be made out without some kind of physical manifestation of the alleged agreement being established. (Para 22)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 320 -A delicate balance ought to be struck in cases wherein the parties seek compounding of the offences. Though well- intentioned, an excessively moralistic order may unnecessarily prolong criminal proceedings, which have no logical conclusion and only serve to further distress the parties. (Para 32)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 227 – The discharge stage acts as a critical filter to eliminate cases lacking legal merit, sparing the accused from unnecessary proceedings, while ensuring that credible cases proceed to trial. Thus, discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC is justified when the material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case against the accused to proceed for trial. The legislative spirit behind this provision envisions the rights of the accused being balanced with public interest, so as to ultimately prevent abuse of the legal process. (Para 34)

Separation of powers – Ordinarily, the judiciary should not stray too far out of bounds, and expressly interfere in the legislative domain. The democratic setup of this country may be likened to a tripartite machine, fueled by the doctrine of separation of powers, without which its functioning shall surely come to a grinding halt. (Para 53)

Summary: HC confirmed death sentence of accused in rape and murder case – Allowing appeal, Supreme Court acquitted the accused.

Vinobhai vs State of Kerala 2025 INSC 119- S 27 Evidence Act – Disclosure Statement

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure Statements are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 8) – Quoted from of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P.

Summary: Murder case – Concurrent conviction by Trial court and HC – SC allows appeal and acquits the accused.

Mahabir Vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 120 – S 372 CrPC – Victims’ Right To Appeal – Art.20-22 Constitution – S 145 Evidence Act – Public Prosecutors

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 372 Proviso – The ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before. Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’ in Section 372 of CrPC by this amendment, a right has been created in favour of the victim -The proviso establishes an independent right and is not an exception to Section 372, but a stand-alone legal provision. The amendment made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature.(Para 54-72)

Constitution of India – Article 21 – In cases where there can be no dispute of facts, the constitutional courts have the power to award compensation in case a person has been deprived of his life and liberty without following the procedure established by law. (Para 84)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 154 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 161,162,164 – the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly- Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction. (Para 81) – The phrase ‘if duly proved’ in Section 162 of the CrPC indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence. (Para 80)

Constitution of India – Article 20-22 – The right to consult an advocate of choice shall not be denied to any person who is arrested. This does not mean that persons who are not under arrest or custody can be denied such right- The service of a lawyer shall be available for consultation to the accused person under circumstances of near custodial interrogation. Moreover, the right against self-incrimination is best practiced & best promoted by conceding to the accused, the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. Lawyers’ presence is a constitutional claim in some circumstances of our country, and in the context of Article 20(3), is an assurance of awareness and observance of the right to silence. (Para 45)

Legal Maxim – “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” – Judicial actions should not unfairly harm any party and that courts should act judiciously to prevent errors that could lead to injustice.”There is no higher principle for the guidance of the court than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied, but for that mistake.” (Para 4-5)

Public Prosecutors – State Governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective High Courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit – 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- Role of Public Prosecutors explained (Para 92-98)

Interpretation of Statutes – A statute which creates new rights shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. (Para 72)

KBH Anjanappa vs A Prabhakar 2025 INSC 121 – Ss 96,100 CPC – S 52 TP Act -Leave To Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – 96 and 100 – A stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person- It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court – A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned – The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury- It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment -Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order I Rule 10 -Order XXII Rule 10 CPC ; Transfer of Property Act – Section 52 – A lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. i. First, for the purpose of impleading a transferee pendente lite, the facts and circumstances should be gone into and basing on the necessary facts, the Court can permit such a party to come on record, either under Order I Rule 10 CPC or under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, as a general principle; ii. a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right; iii. Thirdly, there is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite, with the leave of the Court should, in all cases, be allowed to come on record as a party; iv. Fourthly, the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite would depend upon the nature of the suit and appreciation of the material available on record; v. Fifthly, where a transferee pendente lite does not ask for leave to come on record, that would obviously be at his peril, and the suit may be improperly conducted by the plaintiff on record; vi. Sixthly, merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented; vii. Seventhly, the sale transaction pendente lite is hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 96,100 and Order XXII Rule 10– A lis pendens transferee though not brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, is entitled to seek leave to appeal against the final decree passed against this transferor, the defendant in the suit. However, whether to grant such leave or not is within the discretion of the court and such discretion should be exercised judiciously in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 56)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 15- 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC – While deciding an application under Section 146 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, the Court is not require to go in the controversy as to whether person sought to be impleaded as party in the suit is either necessary or proper party. If the person sought to be impleaded as party is legal representative of a party to the suit, it is sufficient for the Court to order impleadment/substitution of such person. (Para 55)

Om Prakash Ambadkar vs  State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 122

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

MBS Vishnu Ganga vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Motor Accident Compensation – Income Tax Returns – 2025 INSC 123

Motor Accident Compensation – Income Tax Returns are reliable evidence to assess the income of a deceased. (Para 11)

Summary: Supreme Court restores MACT award and sets aside HC judgment that had reduced compensation- Merely because the appellants (claimants) stepped into the shoes of the deceased, by such factum itself, the appellants would not be capable of running the Mill. It would be of relevance as to whether due to their lack of experience and maturity, real/expected downfall in the profitability of the firm or the business would ensue. Such factor, while considering a claim pertaining to loss of future income/earnings, would have to be dealt with.

Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs Girish Sriram Juneja 2025 INSC 124 – IBC – Competition Act

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Section 31 –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.- The proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC mentions that the approval to the Resolution Plan from CCI shall be obtained ‘prior’ to its approval by the CoC- Therefore, to interpret the specific word to mean that such an approval can be obtained even ‘after’ and not necessarily ‘prior’ to the approval by the CoC would amount to reconstructing a statutory provision, which is not permissible. (Para 65)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Sections 61,62 – Once the CIRP is initiated, the nature of proceedings are no longer in personam but rather become in rem- The expression ‘any person aggrieved’ in the context of the IBC has been held to be indicative of there being no rigid locus requirements to institute an appeal challenging an order of the NCLT before the NCLAT or an order of the NCLAT before Supreme Court.

Competition Act – Section 53B, 53T – Even those persons that bring to CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act, could be said to be ‘aggrieved’. (Para 26)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Resolution Professional does not possess any adjudicatory powers under the IBC. In fact, the role of the Resolution Professional, as a facilitator of the CIPR, is almost entirely administrative in nature. (Para 116)

Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of interpretation permit courts to read a certain word, term or phrase in the statute differently from its plain meaning if it leads to absurdity but the courts must always remain conscious of the fine dividing line, separating adjudication and legislation, which must not be crossed. (Para 64)

Dr. Tanvi Behl vs Shrey Goel 2025 INSC 125 – Residence-Based Reservation In PG Medical Courses

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses – Reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India- If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different State in the Union – However, the benefit of ‘reservation’ in educational institutions including medical colleges to those who reside in a particular State can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses. (Para 31)

Domicile –The purpose for which domicile is used by Governments is like a substitute for ‘permanent residence’ or a ‘permanent home’. Yet ‘domicile’ is primarily a legal concept for the purposes of determining what is the ‘personal law’ applicable to an individual. Therefore, even if an individual has no permanent residence or permanent home, he is still invested with a ‘domicile’ albeit by law or implication of law- The concept of domicile acquires importance only when within a country there are different laws or more precisely different systems of law operating. But this is not the case in India. Each citizen of this country carries with him or her, one single domicile which is the ‘Domicile of India’. The concept of regional or provincial domicile is alien to the Indian legal system. (Para 19) We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India. (Para 31)

Krishnadatt Awasthy vs State Of M.P 2025 INSC 126- Natural Justice – Writ Jurisdiction

Natural Justice -Whether the denial of natural justice at the initial stage can be cured by an appellate body? concluded that a defect at the initial stage cannot generally be cured at the appellate stage. Even in cases where a ‘full jurisdiction’ may be available at the appellate stage, the Courts must have the discretion to relegate it to the original stage for an opportunity of hearing. (Para 67)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – The courts under its writ jurisdiction do not interfere with selections made by expert bodies by reassessing the comparative merits of the candidates. Interference with selections is limited to decisions vitiated by bias, malafides and violation of statutory provisions. Additionally, this Court has also held that administrative action can be reviewed on the ground of proportionality if it affects fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 16)

Natural Justice – The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics – An allegation of bias, can only be proved if facts are established after giving an opportunity of hearing. This process requires a fair and transparent procedure in which the concerned parties are given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Such an opportunity allows the accused party or the affected individuals to respond to the allegations, provide evidence, and clarify any misgivings regarding the decision-making process. Therefore, for an allegation of bias to be proved, it is imperative that the procedural safeguards of a fair hearing are observed allowing for establishment of the relevant facts.

JM Laboratories Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127- S 204 CrPC 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 204- Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto- Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. (Para 35) – Quoted from INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh

INOX Air Products Limited vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 128- S 204 CrPC – Ss 18,27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 204 – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto- Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. (Para 35)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 18,27 – For constituting an offence, what is necessary to establish is that the accused manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes any drug without a valid license required under clause (a)(vi) of Section 18 of the said Act. As such, what the prosecution will have to establish is that the accused sold the drug without accused aving the valid license for the further sale of the same- The term ‘manufacture’ is an inclusive term and has a wide scope. It includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution. (Para 18-23)

N. Usha Rani vs Moodudula Srinivas 2025 INSC 129- S 125 CrPC – Second Marriage 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125 – The right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband – Referred to Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana – Social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction- In this case, the issue raised was: Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting? Distinguished judgments in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Bakulabai and Another vs. Gangaram and Another (1988) 1 SCC 537 which denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages- Plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable- when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant – The Court also noted: Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant not once, but twice. While MoU of Separation is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.

Dr. Priyambada Sharma vs Board Of Governors In Supersession Of Medical Council Of India 2025 INSC 130 

Note– Review petitions – No legal aspect involved in this judgment.

Vellore District Environment Monitoring Committee vs District Collector 2025 INSC 131 – Environment Law – Tanneries

Tanneries– tanneries are among the most polluting industries and the damage caused by them by discharging untreated or partially treated effluents into the River Palar and surrounding areas, has resulted in irreversible damage to the water bodies, groundwater, and agricultural lands. This environmental degradation has impoverished local farmers and has caused immense suffering to the local residents and the tannery workers, thereby endangering public health and life – Directions issued.

Environmental Law – Three foundational principles (i) Doctrine of Public Trust – vital natural resources such as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the State for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. This doctrine places a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them from privatization or exploitation that compromises public interests. It imposes three key restrictions viz., (a)resources must remain accessible for public use, (b)cannot be sold for private gain, and (c)must be preserved in their natural state. Courts internationally, have extended its scope to protect wetlands, riparian forests, and ecologically fragile lands, emphasizing the need for environmental preservation in light of modern ecological challenges-(ii) Principle of Sustainable Development- The doctrine of sustainable development was evolved to strike a balance between economic advancement and environmental safeguards. It envisions development that can be sustained by nature / environment. While the advancement of industries and infrastructure is indispensable for fostering employment and generating revenue, such growth cannot come at the cost of irreparable ecological damage-(iii) Right to healthy environment – Right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy, pollution free environment, which are essential for the full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution to address the pollution of environment which may be detrimental to the quality of life. The concept of ‘right to healthy environment’ as part of the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 – The ‘right to clean drinking water’ as a fundamental right. Infact, environmental rights, which encompass a group of collective rights, are now described as “third generation” rights. Therefore, the State, so as to sustain its claim of functioning for the welfare of its citizens, is bound to regulate water supply by safeguarding, maintaining and restoring the water bodies to protect the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards -The States shall ensure that the water bodies are free from encroachments and steps must be taken to restore the water bodies. (Para 60-64)

Polluters pay principle- The universal principle followed for fastening liability on the polluter for the proportionate damage caused to the environment, resulting in violation of right to clean and healthy environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -When an activity is inherently hazardous or dangerous, the individual or entity engaging in such activity bears absolute liability for any harm caused, regardless of the care exercised. Polluting industries, therefore, are under an obligation to fully compensate for the damage caused to affected communities – Polluter Pays Principle extended beyond compensating victims of pollution; it included the cost of reversing environmental degradation, in other words, they are required to undertake all necessary remedial measures to remove pollutants and restore the environment. This principle, along with the Precautionary Principle, has been recognized as part of the law of the land, drawing strength from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It underscores that environmental protection is not merely a regulatory obligation but a constitutional imperative aimed at safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals and preserving ecological balance. (Para 71)

Government Pay Principle – While polluters bear absolute liability to compensate for environmental damage, the Governments (both Union and State) share an equally significant responsibility to prevent environmental degradation and ensure the implementation of effective remedial action- In situations where authorities fail to regulate polluters adequately, the resultant environmental degradation underscores a shared responsibility. The ‘Government Pay Principle’ emerges from this context, aiming to hold governments accountable for regulatory and enforcement lapses. (Para 82-83)

Karuppudayar vs State 2025 INSC 132 – SC-ST Act – Public View – S 482 CrPC

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) -For constituting an offence, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view- 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. [Referred to Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 ] (Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases- The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. However, the court would be justified in exercising its discretion if the case falls under any of the clauses carved out by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (para 17)

Summary: SC quashed criminal proceedings under SC-ST Act – In this case that when the complainant was in his office the accused came there; enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the accused and took him away. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident- that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.

Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 133 – S 304B IPC – S 113B Evidence Act – Dowry Death

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 113B – The presumption under Section 113-B will apply when it is established that soon before her death, the woman has been subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Therefore, even for attracting Section 113-B, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was subjected by the appellant to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before her death. Unless these facts are proved, the presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked. (Para 8)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 304B – Essential ingredients : a) The death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; b) The death must have been caused within seven years of her marriage; c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband; and d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry- If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or husband’s relative, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same meaning as in Section 30 of IPC. (Para 7) Section 304-B of the IPC was brought on the statute book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly laid down and explained the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B. But, the Trial Courts are committing the same mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State Judicial Academies to step in. (Para 17)

Summary: SC allowed appeal and set aside concurrent conviction of appellant under Section 498A and 304B IPC.

Parimal Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand 2025 INSC 134- Public Employment – NCTE Guidelines – TET

Public Employment – The recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement, and that eligibility criteria as laid down therein cannot be changed mid-way during the recruitment process unless the extant rules or the advertisement permit such a change after the issuance. Even if such a power to amend is reserved in the advertisement or the rules, it must be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and pass the test of non–arbitrariness. (Para 55)

NCTE Guidelines – For a school covered by para 10(b)(i) & (ii), discretion has been conferred to accept the TET certificate awarded by another State/UT. But for the same school, if the State decides not to conduct TET, then discretion has been given to consider the TET conducted by the Central Government for eligibility. (Para 48)

Education – To educate is not merely to impart information, but to instil the ability to think critically, to inspire curiosity and to foster the love of learning. By imparting knowledge and life skills, teachers shape the foundation for lifelong learning and responsible citizenship. The importance of education and the paramount role of teachers in today’s day and age cannot be underplayed. (Para 1)

Jiya vs Kuldeep 2025 INSC 135 – Permanent Alimony

Permanent alimony – Relevant factors for consideration -Referred t0 Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.

Summary: SC upheld HC order to the extent of finalising the grant of divorce decree to the parties and observed: awarding an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as a one-time settlement in favour of the appellant-wife shall serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice.

Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 136 – Service Law – Regular Pay Scale 

Summary: HC denied the extending the benefit of regular pay-scale to Appellants – SC allowed appeal – No legal aspect discussed in the judgment.

Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 137 – S 375 – Marital Rape Exception

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375 – Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape – Criminal proceedings against accused quashed. 

C & C Constructions Ltd. vs IRCON International Ltd 2025 INSC 138 – S 37 Arbitration Act 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 37 – Scope of interference in an appeal – Quoted from Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India: In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34. (Para 27)

Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs Maharashtra 2025 INSC 139 – S 156(3) CrPC – Changes Brought By BNSS 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 156(3) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 175(3) – Three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS: First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3)- The changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives- Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 156(3) – Whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate seeking police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not. In other words, the Magistrate may not undertake the exercise to ascertain whether the complaint is false or otherwise, however, the Magistrate is obliged before he proceeds to pass an order for police investigation to closely consider whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are borne out on plain reading of the complaint. (Para 11)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 294 – The act of a police officer assaulting the complainant within public view or public – Obscene act for the purpose of Section 294 has a particular meaning. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by themselves are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC. (Para 15)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 504,506 –Quoted from Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 200,156(3) – It is not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise. The issue of jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be ignored. (Para 24) If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police. (Para 25)

Summary: SC set aside order passed by the Magistrate directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2025 INSC 140 Ajai Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh – Murder Conviction Modified To S 304 IPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 300 – Concurrent murder conviction – Allowing appeal, SC observed: The possibility of the incident occurring in the spur of the moment and the appellant assaulting the deceased on account of sudden provocation, due to a sudden fight between them cannot be ruled out. We find that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellant under Part I of Section 304 IPC would meet the ends of justice.

Directorate Of Enforcement vs Subhash Sharma 2025 INSC 141 – S 45 PMLA – S 57 CrPC – Art. 22 Constitution – Bail – Illegal Arrest 

PMLA – Section 45 – When arrest is illegal or is vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA (Para 9)

Constitution of India – Article 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 57 – PMLA – Section 45, 65 – The requirement of clause 2 of Article 22 has been incorporated in Section 57 CrPC – There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the PMLA and Section 57 of Cr.P.C. Hence, by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 57 of the Cr.P.C applies to the proceedings under the PMLA. (Para 7)

Constitution of India – Article 21,22- Bail – The continuation of the accused in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India- Since there is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated- Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. (Para 6-9)

Gulshan Kumar vs Institute Of Banking Personnel Selection 2025 INSC 142 -RPwD Act – Scribe Facility

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016- Rights of disabled persons to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations.- The principle of reasonable accommodation is central to ensure equality for all the persons with disabilities; and denying the facility of scribe or compensatory time, constitutes discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016 (Para 10) all the benefits given to PwBD candidates must also be extended to PwD candidates, and there can be no discrimination between the candidates in granting facilities such as scribes, compensatory time, etc., except for reservation, in writing the examinations. – There is an urgent need for a uniform memorandum for examinations applicable to all PwD candidates- The benefits conferred by the statute should be provided for all the PwD candidates and they cannot be denied on the ground of absence of accountability and/or lack of duty on enforceability -Directions issued.

Constitution of India – Article 19,21 – Rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against private entities. (Para 18)

Godrej Projects Development Limited vs Anil Karlekar 2025 INSC 143 – S 74 Contract Act – Forfeiture Of Earnest Money 

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 74 – If the forfeiture of earnest money under a contract is reasonable, then it does not fall within Section 74 of the inasmuch as, such a forfeiture does not amount to imposing a penalty – However, if the forfeiture is of the nature of penalty, then Section 74 would be applicable- Under the terms of the contract, if the party in breach undertook to pay a sum of money or to forfeit a sum of money which he had already paid to the party complaining of a breach of contract, the undertaking is of the nature of a penalty- Referred to Maula Bux v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 554. (Para 38)

Contract Law -Contractual terms which are ex facie one- sided, unfair and unreasonable would constitute unfair trade practice as per the aforesaid definition of “unfair trade practice”. (Para 30) the courts will not enforce an unfair and unreasonable contract or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between Parties who are not equal in bargaining power. (Para 26)

Summary: Appeal against NCDRC order directing the Appellant to deduct only 10% of the Basic Sale Price (“BSP” for short) towards cancellation of the Complainants’ Apartment- Disposing appeal, SC observed: NCDRC, in a series of cases right from the year 2015, has held that 10% of the BSP is a reasonable amount which is liable to be forfeited as earnest money- We see no reason to upset the view consistently taken by the NCDRC.

Shripal Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144 -Labour Law – Uma Devi Judgment – U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 

Labour Law – SC judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment- Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions – jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement – Quoted from in Jaggo v. Union of India. (Para 15)

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act – Section 6E, 6N – Whether an individual is classified as regular or temporary is irrelevant as retrenchment obligations under the Act must be met in all cases attracting Section 6N. Any termination thus effected without statutory safeguards cannot be undertaken lightly.

Labour Law – Rights of employees – While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period (Para 17)- Equal pay for equal work– The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements. (Para 13)

Wahid vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 145 – Criminal Trial – Robbery

Criminal Trial – Robbery – In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

Summary: SC allows appeal filed by accused – sets aside Concurrent conviction in robbery case.

Union of India vs Tarsem Singh 2025 INSC 146 – S 3J National Highways Act

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3J – In Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh, SC held that Section 3J of the NHAI Act, by excluding the applicability of the 1894 Act and thereby denying ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ for lands acquired under the NHAI Act, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – UoI filed Misc. Application that sought clarification that this judgment is to be applied prospectively- SC dismissed M.A. and observed- Rendering the decision in Tarsem Singh as prospective would create a situation where a landowner whose land was acquired on 31.12.2014 would be denied the benefit of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’, whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very next day, 01.01.2015-the date on which the Ordinance was promulgated, to read the 2013 Act into the NHAI Act, would be entitled to these statutory benefits – Principles established in Tarsem Singh regarding the beneficial nature of granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ reaffirmed while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. (Para 16-25) 

Legal Maxims – Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum – What cannot be done directly should also not be done indirectly’. – SC reiterated disapproval of the practice of filing Miscellaneous Applications as a strategic litigation tactic aimed at neutralising judicial decisions and seeking a second opportunity for relief.(Para 22) 

Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 147- S 24 Evidence Act -Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Extra Judicial Confession- Confession may be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extrajudicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before a magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a magistrate or a court. Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party before a private individual who may be a judicial officer also in his private capacity. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: firstly, whether they are made voluntarily and secondly, are they true? If the court is of the opinion that the confession was not made voluntarily but was a result of an inducement, threat or promise, it would not be acted upon. It follows that a confession would be voluntary if it is made by the accused in a fit state of mind and if it is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against him proceeding from a person in authority. Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case judged in the light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession discussed – Extra-judicial confession of an offence made by the accused before a witness is one of the several instances of circumstantial evidence; there are other circumstances, such as, the theory of last seen together; conduct of the accused before or immediately after the incident; human blood being found on the clothes or person of the accused which matches with that of the accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc. (Para 16- 19)

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances taken cumulatively must be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. While there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. (Para 16)

Ashok Saxena Vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 148 – S 301 IPC – Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice Or The Transmigration Of Motive

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 301 – Doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive– Culpable homicide may be committed by causing death of a person whom the offender neither intended nor knew himself to be likely to kill. If the killing takes place in the course of doing an act which a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, it must be treated as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out – Under the Section, if A intends to kill B, but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed to him. If A aims his shot at B, but it misses B either because B moves out of the range of the shot or because the shot misses the mark and hits some other person C, whether within sight or out of sight, under Section 301, A is deemed to have hit C with the intention to kill him. What is to be noticed is that to invoke Section 301 of the IPC, A shall not have any intention to cause the death or the knowledge that he is likely to cause the death of C. – Referred to Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1972 SC 502; Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore reported in 1979 UJ 659 (SC); Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1991 SC 982; Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 CrLJ 464. (Para 37-42)

Airports Authority Of India vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee 2025 INSC 149 – Disciplinary Proceedings – Art. 226 Constitution – Intra Court Writ Appeal

Disciplinary proceedings –In disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer (Para 32) All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. (Para 33) In a disciplinary enquiry, the burden upon the department is limited and it is required to prove its case on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. (Para 34)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – In an intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. (Para 37)

Disciplinary proceedings – Strict rules of evidence prohibiting admissibility of confessional statements recorded by the police officials do not apply. Likewise, non-examination of the decoy cannot be treated to be fatal in the domestic enquiry where other evidence indicts the delinquent officer -Even a confession of the delinquent employee recorded by the Trap Laying Officer during the criminal investigation can be relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 150 – DNA Report – Death Penalty Matter

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 45 -DNA report – The DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case- mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents- Referred to Rahul v. State of Delhi (2023) 1 SCC 83 (Para 24)

Summary: Accused convicted and sentenced to death under Section 376(DB) IPC – HC confirmed death sentence – Partly allowing appeal, SC remanded the case to Trial Court directing it to summon the scientific experts associated with the preparation and issuance of the DNA report with the entire supporting material.

Manish Yadav Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 151 – S 375 IPC – Rape on Promise To Marry

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375 – Where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events, allowing the prosecution of accused would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else.[Supreme Court quashed rape case against accused] – Referred to Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675; Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar (2005) 1 SCC 88. (Para 14-22)

S.R.S. Travels vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers 2025 INSC 152 – Motor Vehicles Act – Repeal Of KCCA Act – Delegation – Legislation – Repeal

Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003- Section 3– Section 3 which repeals the KCCA Act, is constitutional – The rationale underlying the 2003 Repeal Act is sound and consistent with the principles of legislative power. The arguments advanced that the repeal would amount to an impermissible overruling of prior Supreme Court decisions, that it violates the requirement of presidential assent, or that it is otherwise beyond the legislative competence of the State, are untenable. (Para 17)

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 68(5) ; KMV Rules, 198 – Rule 56(1)(d)- The State Transport Authority (STA) possesses the power to delegate its functions under Section 68(5) of the MV Act, as expressly provided by the statute and further clarified by Rule 56(1)(d) of the KMV Rules- The delegation is a rational and necessary administrative measure that facilitates prompt and efficient processing of permit applications without undermining the oversight function of the STA. (Para 27-28)

Legislation – The power to repeal a law is coextensive with the power to enact it. (Para 10) A repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act’s operative provisions; it is not subject to the same procedural requirements as an original enactment when it comes to the need for fresh assent, provided that the repeal falls within the legislative competence of the State. (Para 13)

Legislation – Legislature may, subject to constitutional limitations, repeal any law it has enacted -If the Legislature has the power to enact a law on a particular subject, it equally possesses the power to repeal that law. (Para 15) – Merely because Supreme Court decisions affirmed the constitutional validity of a Statute at the time of its enactment; they do not bind the Legislature from modifying or repealing a statute when subsequent developments warrant a change in policy. (Para 13)

Administrative law – Quasi-judicial functions may be delegated if the enabling statute expressly provides for such delegation. (Para 23)

State Of Jharkhand vs Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao 2025 INSC 153- NDPS Act – Bail

NDPS Act – SC sets aside HC order that granted bail to NDPS accused noticing that he has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act – No legal aspects involved.

Binod Kumar Singh vs National Insurance Company 2025 INSC 154 – Insurance Claim

Insurance Claim – NCDRC held that the insurance claim cannot be allowed in the absence of any valid permit – Allowing appeal, SC observed: the permit which is on record and the National Permit is certainly valid up to 13.10.2017. The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, the respondent company could not have repudiated the claim on such a frivolous ground. The permit in question was issued by the competent authority in Bihar and, therefore, there was no requirement of paying authorization fee when the truck was being used in the State of Bihar and as per the terms and conditions of the National Permit, authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar- The appellant was certainly entitled for the insurance claim.

Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria Vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 INSC 155- S 276CC Income Tax Act – Compounding

Income Tax Act 1961 – Section 276CC & 139 – An offence under Section 276CC could be said to have been committed as soon as there is a failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the return of income within the due time as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequent furnishing of the return of income by the assessee within the time limit prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 139 or before prosecution is initiated does not have any bearing upon the fact that an offence under Section 276CC has been committed on the day immediately following the due date for furnishing return of income -The point in time when the offence under Section 276CC could be said to be committed is the day immediately following the due date prescribed for filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, and the actual date of filing of the return of income at a belated stage would not affect in any manner the determination of the date on which the offence under Section 276CC of the Act was committed. (Para 36) – Referred to Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 9 SCC 686.

Income Tax Act 1961 – Section 279(2) -the provision is enabling in nature and cannot be construed as allowing the assessee to demand compounding as a matter of right. (Para 51)

Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2014 – Para 8 – Only those offences to be treated as the “first offence” which are committed by the assessee either prior to a notice that he is liable to prosecution under the Act for the commission of such offences or those offences which are voluntarily disclosed by the assessee to the Department before they come to be detected. The latter part of the definition of the expression “first offence” is not to curtail the scope of the first half but to expand its ambit by including those cases where the assessee comes forward on his own initiative and discloses the commission of the offence- The restrictions laid down in Paragraph 8 of the guidelines are although required to be generally followed, the guidelines do not exclude the possibility that in a peculiar case where the facts and circumstances so require, the competent authority cannot make an exception and allow the compounding application. (Para 73-79)

Suresh Chandra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 156 – S 106 Evidence Act – Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Section 106 – The burden would shift upon the accused. However, for the burden to shift upon the accused, the initial burden will have to be discharged by the prosecution- In a case where around twelve persons residing along with the decease, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish as to which of the accused persons was in the company of the deceased prior to her death being noticed- The issue would have been different if it was only the husband and the wife who were residing together and the death had occurred in suspicious circumstances. (Para 9-10)

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellants and the accused alone, who have committed the crime. Every hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants will have to be ruled out- However strong the suspicion, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt- The approach in the criminal trial has to be of proof beyond reasonable doubt and not the probability or a possibility. (Para 11-16)

D.M. Jagadish vs Bangalore Development Authority 2025 INSC 157 – Practice and Procedure – Natural Justice

Practice and Procedure – HC single bench allowed writ petitions thereby quashing the acquisition – Allowing appeal, HC Division Bench upheld it – Allowing appeal, SC observed: The approach of the Division Bench in relying on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made in the said affidavit would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge has been reversed by the learned Division Bench based on the affidavit of the authority without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made therein.

Ganesan vs State 2025 INSC 158 – S 307 IPC – Punishment

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 307 – “attempt to murder” provides for a punishment of, either imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. The threshold term of imprisonment, if life is avoided, can only be 10 years and not more – In this case, SC held: sentence of 12 years R.I. granted by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained; since the maximum sentence under Section 307, I.P.C., if life is avoided, can only be a maximum of 10 years- Appellate Court is not competent to impose a punishment higher than the maximum that could have been imposed by the Trial Court. (Para 5-8)

Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 159 – Habeas Corpus – Child Custody 

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Habeas Corpus –There can be no hard and fast rule insofar as the maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition relating to custody of minor children; which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [In this case, the father is seeking custody of the child from the grand-parents – In appeal, SC observed: son. The father, the natural guardian is well employed and educated and there is nothing standing against his legal rights; as a natural guardian, and legitimate desire to have the custody of his child- There is no allegation of any matrimonial dispute when the mother of the child was alive nor a complaint of abuse perpetrated against the wife or son – The welfare of the child, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be best served if custody is given to the father.]

Geddam Jhansi vs State Of Telangana 2025 INSC 160 – Domestic Violence Act

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – In criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law- Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case.

Maya Singh vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 INSC 161 – Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier

Motor Accident Compensation – Multiplier – Normally Courts and Tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgement of this Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 INSC 506 – Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded. while calculating the compensation, the multiplier to be used should start with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

Vihaan Kumar Vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 162 – Art. 22 Constitution – Requirement Of Informing Grounds Of Arrest 

Constitution of India – Article 21,22 – a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

Constitution of India – Article 21 – In this case, accused was taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital bed – SC held: This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. : The State of Haryana directed to issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police to ensure that the act of handcuffing an accused while he is on a hospital bed and tying him to the hospital bed is not committed again. (Para 29,33)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 41 – BNSS – Section 35 –Police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged. He can arrest provided twin conditions in clause (ba) are satisfied. The emphasis is on “credible information”. He cannot arrest a person under clause (ba) unless credible information is received.: a) Credible information has been received against the person that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and b) The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of the information received that such a person has committed the offence. (Para 8)

Marippan vs State 2025 INSC 163 – Observation Against Third Party

Practice and Procedure – In this case, HC made an observation “… If this Petition is allowed, the Petitioners’ son will spoil women of marriageable age in the same manner…” – SC expunged this and observed: High Court has said what it did, without any notice/opportunity to the appellants’ son and without the benefit of having his say/version before it – Referred to Anu Kumar v State (UT Administration), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3454. (Para 15-17)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 415 – SC quashed criminal proceedings against accused .

Gambhir Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 164 – Death Sentence Acquittal

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 302 – Accused was convicted and sentenced to death for murder of his own brother, sister-in-law and their four children – High Court confirmed death sentence – Allowing appeal and acquitting the accused, SC observed: The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend.

Hare Krushna Mahanta vs Himadari Sahu 2025 INSC 165 – Motor Accident Compensation 

Motor Accident Compensation – The objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party.

Jitendra vs Sadiya 2025 INSC 166 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – Notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income. (Para 10)

Raja Khan vs State Of Chattisgarh 2025 INSC 167 – S 27 Evidence Act – Recovery

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 24- 27 – Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of Section 26. As such the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to discovery of the fact is admissible. A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to its existence- The essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are three- fold: i. The information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. ii. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. iii. The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission of such offence. (Para 19-20) If the recovery memos have been prepared in the police station itself or signed by the panch witnesses in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction. (Para 27)

Ayyub vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 168 – S 306 IPC – Abetment Of Suicide

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 –In order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC – Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. [In this case, the complainant alleged that accused and told the deceased “ because of you our boy has died, why you do not die” – SC held: The utterance attributed to the appellants assuming it to be true cannot be said to be of such a nature as to leave the deceased with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.]

Vipin Kumar Vs Jaydeep 2025 INSC 169 – SLP Dismissal & Doctrine of Merger – S 100 CPC – Second Appeal

Doctrine of Merger – An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking or speaking order. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was no inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow an appeal being filed- Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587. (Para 29)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal could be considered and entertained by High Court only on the basis of framing a substantial question of law in terms of the Section 100 of the Code. (Para 27)

Ravi vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 170 – S 106 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 106 –The initial burden is upon the prosecution to first prima facie establish the guilt of the accused and then only the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances. (Para 21-22) C ourt should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The said provision cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The said provision cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all elements necessary to establish the offence. In other words, the prosecution does not stand absolved from its initial liability to prove the offence and it is only when such an onus is discharged and a prima facie case of guilt is made out that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act may come into play. (Para 22)

Sajimon Parayil Vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 171 – S 176 BNSS

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita- Section 176 – Once information is received or otherwise an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, he is duty bound to proceed in accordance to law as prescribed under Section 176 of BNSS. There can be no direction to injunct or restrain the police officer from proceeding in accordance to law. (Para 16)

Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 172 – Order XXII Rule 5 SC Rules – Exemption From Surrendering

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order XXII Rule 5 – An application seeking exemption from surrendering cannot be entertained or listed before the Judge-in-Chambers in any special leave petition, except where the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. (Para 10)

Lalita vs Vishwanath 2025 INSC 173 – S 306 IPC – FIR By Deceased Person – Evidentiary Value

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 – Mere harassment or cruelty is not sufficient to infer abetement. There has to be some credible evidence that the accused persons aided or instigated the deceased in some manner to take the drastic step of putting an end to her life. (Para 22)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154- If the informant dies, the First Information Report can be, unquestionably, used as a substantive evidence. A prerequisite condition must be fulfilled before the F.I.R. is taken as a substantive piece of evidence i.e. the death of the informant must have nexus with the F.I.R. filed or somehow having some link with any evidence regarding the F.I.R. (Para 32) F.I.R. can be a dying declaration if the informant dies of his injuries after lodging the same (Para 33) For an F.I.R. lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved. It has to be corroborated and proved for there to be any value of the same in the case. The F.I.R. can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the person who lodged the F.I.R. under Section 154(3) of the Evidence Act. In case the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. he died a natural death and did not succumb to the injur- ies inflicted on him in relation to a matter, the contents of the F.I.R. would not be admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, in the course of his deposition, should not be permitted to depose the exact contents of the F.I.R. so as to make them admissible in evidence. All that is permissible in law is that the Investigating Of- ficer can, in his deposition, identify the signature of the first informant and that of his own on the First Information Report and he can depose about the factum of the F.I.R. being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station. (Para 34)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154-. It may happen that the informant is the accused himself. In such cases, the First Information Report lodged by him cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in the basic structure of our Constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Para 30)

AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited vs Jatin Pratap Desai 2025 INSC 174- Ss 16,34,37 Arbitration Act – BSE Bylaws

Arbitration and Conciliation Act -Section 16,34 – When the jurisdictional issue has not been raised in accordance with Section 16, it is deemed that the objecting party has waived his right, in terms of Section 4, to raise the same at a later stage. Such objection cannot be raised for the first time when the party is challenging the award under Section 34. (Para 21)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act -Section 34,37 –The limited supervisory role of courts while reviewing an arbitral award is stipulated in Section 34 of the Act, beyond whose grounds courts cannot intervene and cannot correct errors in the arbitral award. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is also limited, as it is constrained by the grounds specified in Section 34 and the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award by reappreciating evidence or interfering with a reasonable interpretation of contractual terms by the arbitral tribunal. The court under Section 37 must only determine whether the Section 34 court has exercised its jurisdiction properly and rightly, without exceeding its scope. (Para 22)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Bombay Stock Exchange Bye- laws, 1957 -Bye-law 248(a) provides for arbitration between members and non-members of the BSE- An oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. (Para 2)

Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick Vs Ranajit Ghoshal 2025 INSC 175 – Order XXI Rule 32 – Imprisonment Of JD – Jurisdictional Error

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 32 – Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor is no doubt a drastic step and would prevent him from moving anywhere he likes, but once it is proved that he had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court. Failure to exercise this power in appropriate cases might verily undermine the respect for judicial institutions in the eyes of litigants. The court’s power under Order 21, Rule 32 is no more than a procedural aid to the harried decree-holder. Where the judgment-debtor disobeys a decree of injunction, he can be dealt with under this rule by his imprisonment or by attachment of his property or by both. But the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him. Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order. (Para 44-45) what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the sub- rule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude (i) that the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him; and (ii) that that person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has wilfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for. Thus, the onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of detention is sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention, lest the person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about its need. (Para 51)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 32 Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law making the judgment-debtor answerable. Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no application. The court is expected to take strict view and stern action. (Para 46)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 32 – A decree of permanent injunction is executable with the aid of the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code referred to above, and any act in violation or breach of decree of permanent injunction is a continuing disobedience entailing penal consequences. (Para 36)

Limitation Act – Article 136 – Enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation -The decree for permanent injunction can be enforced or becomes enforceable when the judgment debtor tries to disturb the peaceful possession of the decree holder or tries to dispossess the decree holder in some manner or the other or creates obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the property over which he has a declaration of title from the civil court in the form of a decree. (Para 41)

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Section 115 – Jurisdictional Error – If an error, be it an error of fact or of law, is such that the erroneous decision has resulted in the subordinate Court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction, not vested in it by law, or in its having failed to exercise jurisdiction, vested in it by law, that will come within the scope of Section 115 of the Code or, for the matter of that, of Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be. This error may have resulted from a violation of rules of natural justice, by taking into consideration matters which are extraneous and irrelevant, or by substituting judicial consideration by bias, based on suspicion, arising from those extraneous matters or from any other cause whatsoever but if it has affected the assumption or exercise of jurisdiction, as envisaged above, it will be a jurisdictional error for purposes of the above Article. There is no exhaustive list of jurisdictional errors, but case law has identified such an error exists when a decision- maker has: identified a wrong issue; asked a wrong question; ignored relevant material; relied on irrelevant material; failed to observe a requirement of procedural fairness; made a decision involving fraud; made a decision in bad faith; made a decision without evidence; applied a policy inflexibly.

Amrit Yadav State Of Jharkhand 2025 INSC 176 – Art. 14,16,32, 226 Constitution -Public Employment -Advertisement Arbitrariness

Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – Once the appointment process is declared to be a nullity in law, every action taken in furtherance of such appointment process is also illegal, and, therefore, the constitutional courts have jurisdiction to set aside such appointments wholly and ab-initio. This power of the Court is not curtailed even in a situation where a third-party right has been created in those who have been offered appointment or have even joined the service (Para 35) a beneficiary of a back-door procedure cannot claim proper treatment as per law when they come at the receiving end. (Para 37) If the subject appointments were ab-initio nullity in the eyes of law, it is not incumbent on the Court to pass the order after hearing all the parties that were likely to be affected by such decision, i.e., the candidates who were already appointed on the subject posts including the employee. (Para 32)

Public Employment – Advertisements – Advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency – A valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment must include the total number of seats, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for the posts and procedural clarity with respect to the type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews- that the State must specifically mention in the advertisement the total number of reserved and unreserved seats. However, if the State does not intend to provide reservation, in view of the quantifiable data indicating adequacy of representation, this aspect must also be specifically mentioned in the advertisement. (Para 22)

Constitution of India – Articles 16(4) and (4-A)  – Though there is no fundamental right to claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of the Constitution of India are in the nature of enabling provisions only and do not mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State’s decision to not provide reservation has to be based on some quantifiable data and valid reasoning. (Para 20) 

Constitution of India – Articles 14,16 – Any appointment made in violation of the statutory rules as well as the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity in law. (Para 23) Arbitrariness in public employment goes to the very root of the fundamental right to equality. While no person can claim a fundamental right to appointment, it does not mean that the State can be allowed to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The State is accountable to the public at large as well as the Constitution of India, which guarantees equal and fair treatment to each person. Public employment process thus, must always be fair, transparent, impartial and within the bounds of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a fundamental right to be treated fairly and impartially, which is an appendage of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A violation of this guarantee is liable to judicial scrutiny as well as criticism. (Para 39)

Principles of natural justice – Principles of natural justice cannot be applied in any straitjacket formula and it is imperative to understand that there are certain exceptions to their applicability. (Para 29)

M.S. Sanjay vs Indian Bank 2025 INSC 177 – Art. 226 Constitution – Writ Jurisdiction

Constitution of India – Article 226 – The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. (Para 10) interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such infraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course. (Para 9)

Hansraj vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 178 – S 302 IPC – Motive – Farsi

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 302 – Concurrent Murder conviction set aside- Motive – The issue of non-payment of wages is hardly material and is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to take an extreme step of committing a crime of such a grave nature. (Para 11) Farsi – Instruments like farsi are found in almost every home in the village as it is one of the most used farming equipment. (Para 13)

Deepak Singh Alias Deepak Chauhan Vs Mukesh Kumar 2025 INSC 179 – Motor Accident Compensation – Notional Income – Engineering Student

Motor Accident Compensation – The notional income of an Engineering student cannot be equated to that of an unskilled worker- Referred to Navjot Singh v. Harpreet Singh. (Para 7)

Prakash Chand Sharma vs Rambabu Saini 2025 INSC 180 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – If the Tribunal has reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it is to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability as the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such.(Para 9)

Union Of India vs Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 181 – Lottery

Constitution of India – The expression “lottery” takes its meaning from “betting and gambling”. Although a lottery ticket is nothing but an actionable claim, the conduct of a lottery scheme is nothing but a betting and gambling activity. Therefore, it is only Entry 62 – List II which enables the imposition of tax by the State Government. The activity of betting and gambling which includes conducting of a lottery is regulated under Entry 34 – List II, with Entry 62 – List II being the taxation entry. (Para 18.4)

Constitution of India – Article 32,226, 248 – If a Central Act is challenged as being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, it is enough to enquire if it is a law with respect to matters or taxes enumerated in List II. If it is not, no further question arises. Thus, the wide words of a substantive Article like Article 248 should be given full effect and they cannot be cut down by the wording in the Lists in Schedule VII merely because certain known taxes have not been included therein (Para 11.8)

Contract Law – Agency – The mere fact that a person does something in order to benefit another and the latter is relying on the former to do so or may have requested or even contracted for performance of the action, does not make the former the agent of the latter. The centrality to agency is the conferral of authority to alter legal relations; as such in common law, being an agent is not a status but a description of a person, while and only so long as the person is exercising such authority. Thus, where one person (the principal), requests or authorises the other (agent), to act on his behalf and the other agrees to do so, the law recognises that such agent has power to affect the principal’s legal position by acts which, though performed by the agent, are to be treated in certain respects as if they were acts of the principal. It is common to regard control by the principal as a defining characteristic of agency. Thus, agency is termed as acting on behalf of the principal and subject to principal’s control. (Para 15.3) Lotteries – There is no promotion of the business of the State which conducts lotteries as an agent. Consequently, there is no principal- agent relationship, rather it is one of principal to principal. (Para 17.5)

Naushey Ali vs State of U.P. 2025 INSC 182- S 482 CrPC – S 307 IPC – Attempt To Murder Cases – Quashing On Settlement

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 307 – Will the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when parties come forward with a settlement? Mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. (Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 320, 482 – Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. (Para 6)

Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (D) vs Satish Chandra (D) 2025 INSC 183 – Order XXII Rule 1,4 CPC – Abatement – Substitution – Limitation

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXII Rule 1 – Limitation Act 1963 – Article 120,121 -The total time-frame for filing an application for substitution and for setting aside abatement, as outlined in Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act, is 150 (90 + 60) days. The question of condonation of delay, through an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arises only after this period and not on the 91st day when the suit/appeal abates- The proper sequence to be followed, therefore, is an application for substitution within 90 days of death and if not filed, to file an application for setting aside the abatement within 60 days and if that too is not filed, to file the requisite applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement with an accompanying application for condonation of delay in filing the latter application, i.e., the application for setting aside the abatement. Once the court is satisfied that sufficient cause prevented the plaintiff/appellant from applying for setting aside the abatement within the period of limitation and orders accordingly, comes the question of setting the abatement. That happens as a matter of course and following the order for substitution of the deceased defendant/respondent, the suit/appeal regains its earlier position and would proceed for a trial/hearing on merits. (Para 11 )

Code of Civil Procedure 1908-Order XXII Rule 4 – The law not having expressly mandated that an application for substitution has to be filed by the plaintiff/appellant upon receiving intimation of death, requiring a formal application from the plaintiff only will serve no tangible purpose. (Para 19) When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice. (Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XXII Rule 10A – Rule 10A casts a duty upon a pleader appearing for a party to the suit to intimate the court about the death of such party. It further provides that once the court is informed by the pleader of a party that he is no more, the court “shall” notify the opposing party of the death. A straightforward interpretation of this rule would suggest that the court’s obligation to issue notice to the other party is indeed mandatory. Nonetheless, this obligation may not arise in all circumstances. One notable exception could be when the information regarding the party’s death is conveyed to the court in the presence of the opposing party’s pleader or is documented by the court in the order sheet. In such cases, if the pleader of the concerned party (and consequently the party itself) has already been notified, issuing a further notice from the court would not serve any substantial purpose other than being an exercise by way of abundant caution. Therefore, in the aforementioned scenario, the absence of a notice from the court would not imply a failure to comply with Rule 10A, suggesting that it is not “always mandatory”. (Para 29)

Constitution of India – Article 136 – There is no bar for the Supreme Court to erase defective orders by setting them aside, even in the absence of any challenge thereto. (Para 21)

Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G.K. 2025 INSC 184 – Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment – The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is ‘below poverty line’ and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner. (Para 29)

Compassionate appointment – Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment where the claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection. (Para 27) Principles discussed: a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter of public employment b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a side- door entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution m)The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassionn) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do” t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in- harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy. (Para 11)

Practice and Procedure –Power of an appellate court is circumscribed by laws. Unless a particular case in appeal is so exceptional in nature that the appellate court considers it imperative to exercise power akin to power conferred on appellate courts by Order XLI Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, such power should normally not be exercised. (Para 36)

Precedents – Even an obiter dictum of Supreme Court could be binding on the high courts (Para 39) – So long the decision that is doubted is overruled, it continues to remain binding. (Para 47)

Practice and Procedure – The relief that the suitor is entitled in law could still be denied in equity on account of subsequent and intervening events, i.e., events between the date of commencement of the litigation and the date of the decision; however, such relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi-judicial forum for no fault of the suitor- It would, therefore, not be prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by the court(s) to decide the issue before it. (Para 26)

Akula Raghuram vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 185 – S 366A IPC – Acquitted

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 366A – Accused’s appeal against concurrent conviction – Allowing appeal, SC observed; that Even if there is a consent, the accused cannot be absolved of a criminal liability if the child is a minor -Radiologist certifying her age to be between 16 to 17 years – Even in the case of ossification test, there could be a difference of two years, either way and in that circumstance, the age determination by the doctor as between 16 to 17 years does not conclusively establish that the victim was a minor child at the time of the alleged abduction- Radiologist was neither examined nor was the his report marked in evidence.

Vijayalaxmi @ Roopa V. Shenoy vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 INSC 186 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – The determination of income must proceed on the basis of Income Tax Return when available, being a statutory document. (Para 7)

State Of Uttarakhand vs Sanjay Ram Tamta @ Sanju @ Prem Prakash 2025 INSC 187 – S 304B IPC – Dowry Death – S 378 CrPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 304B -Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 113B – Section 304B of the I.P.C. presupposes several factors for its applicability, which are; (i) the death of a woman caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death having occurred within seven years from the date of the marriage; (iii) soon before her death, the woman having been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband and (iv) such cruelty or harassment being in connection with the demand of dowry. It was, categorically held that if one of the ingredients is absent, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would not be available to the prosecution. (Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 378 – Appellate Courts would be slow in reversing an order of acquittal, especially since the presumption of innocence that is always available to the accused; as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, stands reinforced and reaffirmed by the acquittal and unless there are very substantive and compelling reasons to do so, there cannot be a reversal of an order of acquittal. Unless it is found that the findings are perverse and the only conclusion possible from the compelling evidence is of guilt; Appellate Courts will be slow to reverse an order of acquittal. (Para 5)

Sanjay Rajpoot vs Ram Singh 2025 INSC 188 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – When age at the time of the incident is 22 years of age, the multiplier to be applied is 18. (Para 11)

Digvijay Laxhamsinh Gaekwad (Danny Gaekwad) vs Sapna Govind Rao 2025 INSC 189 – SEBI Regulations

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 – Regulation 20 – No legal aspect involved in this order.

Narcotic Control Bureau vs Lakhwinder Singh 2025 INSC 190 – NDPS Act – Bail – Appellate Court

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India- If a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence- If the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal- Clarified Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731. (Para 5-8)

Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi vs Abdul Munaf 2025 INSC 191 – Motor Accident Compensation – Income – Deceased’s Wife Statement

Motor Accident Compensation – Reliance placed on the statement of the deceased’s wife therein to establish the income of the person. (Para 9)

Seema Rani vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2025 INSC 192 – Motor Accident Compensation- Married Sons & Daughters

Motor Accident Compensation -Major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal must consider the application, irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not- There is no reason to exclude a married daughter from compensation. (Para 9-10)

Shyam Prasad Nagalla vs Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation 2025 INSC 193 – Motor Accident Compensation – Exchange Rate Fixation

Motor Accident Compensation – Date of filing of the claim petition is the proper date for fixing the rate of exchange for computing compensation- The multiplier for a person aged 43 must be 14. No exception is made for a person earning in foreign currency.(Para 9-10)

B.V. Ram Kumar vs State Of Telangana 2025 INSC 194 – S 504 IPC – Senior’s Admonition At Workplace

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 504 – Senior’s admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein. (Para 28)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 504 – Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC. Furthermore, it would be immaterial that the person who has been insulted and provoked did not actually break the peace or commit any offence (Para 22) -if the accused does not intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An insult without an ‘intention to insult’ is not punishable under Section 504, IPC. Further, ‘intentional insult’ must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. (Para 24)Upon reading the complaint as a whole, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult made by the accused to the complainant so as to provoke the latter to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, then only the act complained of would fall within the ambit of Section 504, IPC. The law does not mandate that the complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking him/her to commit breach of peace or any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which the offending words are used, the person to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504, IPC- whether the person provoked further commits an illegal act or not is immaterial to draw the conclusion of culpability under Section 504, IPC. The ‘intentional insult’ and provocation must be so proximate and close that the accused has either the intention or the knowledge that the intentional insult made by him is likely to cause the provoked person to break public peace or commit some other offence. However, what would be the nature of ‘intentional insult’ causing provocation, to draw culpability under Section 504, IPC would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The test to be applied to determine if the intentional insult made by the accused is sufficient to cause provocation is that of a reasonable person, i.e., if the insult is sufficient to provoke any reasonable person to break peace or commit any other offence, only then the accused will be liable for the offence under Section 504, IPC.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – In order to entertain a challenge to the FIR, chargesheet or an order taking cognizance, all that has to be seen is, whether from a bare reading of the chargesheet, the ingredients of the sections charged therein are being prima facie made out or not- Constitutional courts are wholly competent to exercise their extraordinary power to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of the justice if the allegations in the FIR or complaint neither disclose the commission of any offence nor make out a prima facie case against the accused. (Para 14)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B – The legislative intent behind incorporating sub-section (2) to Section 13-B is to enable time to the parties to introspect and consider their decision to separate, before a second motion is moved; when a decree of divorce is sought on a joint petition filed by the parties. (Para 5)

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Though grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy which has to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. (Para 6)

Gudivada Seshagiri Rao Vs Gudivada Ashalatha 2025 INSC 195 – Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B – The legislative intent behind incorporating sub-section (2) to Section 13-B is to enable time to the parties to introspect and consider their decision to separate, before a second motion is moved; when a decree of divorce is sought on a joint petition filed by the parties. (Para 5)

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Though grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy which has to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. (Para 6)

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 196 – Court Proceedings – Humiliation

Practice and Procedure – During court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some. (Para 6)

Sukhdev Singh vs Sukhbir Kaur 2025 INSC 197 – Alimony – Void Marriages

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,- Section 25 –A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary. (Para 28)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 24 – Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary. (Para 28)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 5,11 – The following categories of marriages are void:a. If one or both the parties to the marriage have a spouse living at the time of marriage; b. The parties to the marriage are within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two and c. The parties are sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two. (Para 11) These marriages become void at the inception. Therefore, such marriages are void ab initio. Such marriage does not exist at all in the eyes of the law. (Para 13)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 125 – The remedy under Section 25 of the 1955 Act is completely different from the remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC. It confers rights on the spouses of the marriage declared as void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act to claim maintenance from the other spouse. The remedy is available to both husband and wife. The principles which apply to Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be applied to Section 25 of the 1955 Act. The relief under Section 125 of the CrPC can be granted to wife or child and not to husband- Section 125 of the CrPC operates altogether in a different field. It is a quick and efficacious remedy made available to a wife or a child to seek maintenance. The proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC are of a summary nature. While deciding the applications under Section 125 of the CrPC, a summary procedure is required to be followed, and a detailed adjudication of the rights of the parties cannot be made. The same is the legal position as regards the corresponding remedy under Section 144 of the BNSS. (Para 21-22)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 24 –The conditions for applicability of Section 24 are: (i) There must be a proceeding under the 1955 Act pending and (ii) the court must come to a conclusion that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. (Para 27)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 23- A decree in proceedings contemplated by Section 23 of the 1955 Act is a narrower concept. It can only be a decree granting one of the reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the 1955 Act -The following are the decrees which may be passed under the 1955 Act: a. A decree under Section 9 of restitution of conjugal rights; b. A decree under Section 10 of judicial separation; c. A decree under Section 11 declaring a marriage as void; d. A decree under Section 12 of annulment of a marriage on the ground that it is voidable; and e. A decree of divorce under Sections 13 and 13B- The ‘decrees in proceedings’ will not include the decisions dismissing the petitions seeking reliefs under Sections 9 to 13.

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Calling a woman an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of that woman under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Describing a woman by using these words is against the ethos and ideals of our Constitution. No one can use such adjectives while referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage. (Para 24)

Jay Kishan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 198 – UP Gangsters Act

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Section 2(b) – Mere invocation of certain Sections of the IPC could not and would not preclude the Court from, in a manner of speaking, lifting the veil, to understand what actually lies beneath the material, which is sought to be made the basis for invoking the Act – It would be plainly unwise to accord any unfettered discretion to the authorities concerned when it comes to invoking the Act. The more stringent or penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it to be strictly construed-Compliance and strict adherence mean that only an eyewash by making allegations with a view to set up grounds to justify resort to the Act would not suffice. Material(s) must be available to gauge the probability of commission of the alleged offence(s). Necessarily, this would have to be of a level higher than being merely presumptive. (Para 24-25) The Act can be invoked basis pending cases – However, the case(s) against the person(s) qua whom the Act is to be invoked cannot be run-of-the-mill – it must be serious- The severity required the underlying case(s), we think, ought not to be judicially strait-jacketed as a lot would turn on the specific peculiarities of each case. (Para 26)

Constitution of India – Article 21 -The right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person. (Para 24)

State Of Maharashtra vs Prism Cement Limited 2025 INSC 199 – S 8 Central Sales Tax Act – Prospective Amendment

Central Sales Tax Act – Section 8(4)- The requirement for fulfilling the condition of Section 8(4) of the CST Act for getting the benefit of tax exemption came subsequently after the amendment of Section 8(5) with effect from 11.05.2002 and would apply -The requirement of submission of Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ would apply prospectively after 11.05.2002 i.e., after the Finance Act of 2002. (Para 30)

Interpretation of Statutes – Every statute is prima-facie perspective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operations. Unless there are words in the statutes sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. (Para 23)

Right – If a substantive right has accrued to a person, it cannot be taken away unilaterally without notice or an opportunity of hearing to the said person. (Para 28)

Shankar Lal Sharma vs Rajesh Koolwal 2025 INSC 200 – Advocates – Duty To Court & Litigants

Advocates – Role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those with limited means, and to collectively assist in ensuring that the litigant before a court has an assurance of having secured justice at the hands of the courts and particularly from the Apex Court -The original and core values attached to the legal profession – To lend their noble services to an aggrieved litigant before the Court-not by acting as soldiers on behalf of their clients, but by merely being the bridges of communication and peace between the stakeholders in litigation, i.e., the petitioner(s) and the respondent(s) in a case and by rendering assistance to the bench, so that dispensation of justice in a court of law does not eventually become a zero-sum game- Young advocates joining the bar, must volunteer to assist the litigants who cannot engage the services of a counsel due to lack of means or awareness whenever an opportunity presents itself- The duty to provide ease of access to justice rests upon every member of the legal profession and the requisite message needs to be disseminated from the portals and corridors of this Court in the first instance in both letter and spirit. The enduring service of the learned amicus curiae in the present case is a poignant step in that direction.

Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 201 -National Commission for Homeopathy Act – Judicial Review Of Administrative Action – Chairperson Appointment Quashed

National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020 -Section 4 – The appointment of the Chairperson, who is the head of the Commission carries significant importance and affects various stakeholders in the field of homeopathy.The candidate must have minimum twenty years of experience in the field of homeopathy, out of which at least ten must be as a ‘leader’. These eligibility requirements cannot be waived off by the administration, since they are mandatory requirements- Meaning of ‘Head’ –‘Head’ must refer to a position held by an incumbent who performs the role of a leader and is tasked with making substantive decisions for the department/organisation. Any claim for being ‘Head of a Department’ or ‘Head of an Organisation’ is strengthened if the incumbent exercises administrative or supervisory responsibilities. However, this is not the only factor to be considered. Any such determination must be on a case- to-case basis. (Para 27-29) [Supreme Court quashes appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as National Commission for Homeopathy Chairperson ]

Public Employment – Selection –In the matter of essential qualifications prescribed by the statute, there should neither be any deviation from the statutory requirements nor the advertisement inviting applications while conducting any selection process, unless power to relax the qualifications is shown to exist. (Para 51) Whenever appointment to a public office is sought to be made, irrespective of the nature of the office, the rules prescribing mandatory eligibility criteria must be applied in a strict manner; after all, every public appointment under Article 16 of the Constitution must be fair, non-arbitrary and reasonable. (Para 57) – It amounts to a fraud on the public to make appointments in departure of either the statutory requirements or a public advertisement. Fraud unravels everything. (Para 59)

Constitution of India – Article 226 -Judicial review of administrative action – Interference should be limited, particularly when a merit review is sought -But interference could still be made if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, laying bare inherent arbitrariness in the process- If any of the grounds on which judicial review of administrative action is shown to exist, interference on such ground would be well-nigh permissible. It is not an arena in which intervention is completely barred. (Para 49)

Service Law – there should be some material on the basis whereof equivalence is determined. Generally speaking, equivalence of two posts may be attempted to be determined by factors such as (1) qualifications and requirements; (2) job responsibilities and duties; (3) work environment and conditions including workload and pressure; (4) accountability and impact; and (5) evaluation of the above and comparison. (Para 38-39) – Referred to N.P. Verma v. Union of India. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 748.

Interpretation of Statutes – When there is doubt as to the meaning of a word in the provisions of a statute, the rules of statutory interpretation call upon us to interpret the words in a statute by giving a purposive interpretation having regard to the subject and object of the enactment. (Para 25)

P.M. Lokanath vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 202 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – High Courts in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise secure ends of justice. Referred to State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (Para 20) Such powers should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases. [In this case, the Court noted that initiation of criminal proceedings is totally activated by mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the appellants- Quashed Criminal Proceedings]

Suman Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 203 – S 498A IPC – Quashing

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 498A – FIR registered under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC against Husband and his family – HC refused to quash FIR – Allowing appeal, SC observed: Initially the FIR was lodged alleging rape and no charge-sheet was filed for prosecuting the accused for the offence of rape, and keeping in view of the fact that no protest petition was filed thereafter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR is vexatious and seems to be instituted with an ulterior motive only because the husband preferred a divorce petition on 17.06.2021 i.e. much prior to the filing of the FIR against all the family members.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 – The duty of a High Court in deciding a quashing petition discussed. (Para 15) – Referred to Iqbal alias Bala Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023) 8 SCC 734. (Para 15)

Sushant Sharma vs UT Chandigarh 2025 INSC 204

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Gokul Lamp Works Private Limited vs Mysore Lamp Works Limited 2025 INSC 205

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Siba Nial @ Trilochan vs State Of Odisha 2025 INSC 206 – Concurrent Murder Conviction Set Aside

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order – SC allowed the Criminal appeal and Concurrent murder conviction was set aside.

Tomorrowland Limited vs Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited 2025 INSC 207 – S 34 CPC – Award Of Interest – Contract – Equity – Commercial Disputes

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 34 – The award of interest is a discretionary exercise steeped in equitable considerations – The power to award interest ought to be exercised judiciously, aligning with equitable considerations and also ensuring neither undue enrichment nor unfair deprivation. Courts are duty-bound to assess the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the principles of fairness and justice. This discretion must reflect a balanced approach, grounded in reason, and guided by the overarching objective of equity. (Para 49-50)

Contract Law – A commercial document ought not to be interpreted in a manner that arrives at a complete variance with what may originally have been the intention of the parties. (Para 47) 

Equity – Whosoever comes to the court claiming equity, must come with clean hands. The expression ‘clean hands’ connotes that the suitor or the defendant have not concealed material facts from the court and there is no attempt by them to secure illegitimate gains. Any contrary conduct must warrant turning down relief to such a party, owing to it not acting in good faith and beguiling the court with a view to secure undue gain. A court of law cannot be the abettor of inequity by siding with the party approaching it with unclean hands. This also brings to mind the oft-quoted legal maxim—he who seeks equity must do equity

Commercial Disputes – In commercial disputes, the award of interest pendente lite or post- decree is typically granted as a matter of course. This is because such interest serves to compensate the aggrieved party for the time value of money that was due but withheld during the legal process. It reflects an established norm aimed at ensuring fairness and equity in commercial transactions. (Para 58)

K. Krishnamurthy vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 INSC 208 – S 271AAA Income Tax Act

Income Tax Act 1961 – Section 271AAA – The expression ‘Undisclosed Income’ -The fact that the assessee has surrendered some undisclosed income during the course of search or that the surrender is emerging out of the statements recorded during the course of search is not sufficient to fasten the levy of penalty. The onus is on the Assessing Officer to satisfy the condition precedent stipulated in the said Explanation, before the charge for levy of penalty is fastened on the assessee. 35. Consequently, it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate and prove that undisclosed income of the specified previous year was found during the course of search or as a result of the search. (Para 34) the expression ‘found in the course of search’ is of a wide amplitude. It does not mean documents found in the assessee’s premises alone during the search. At times, search of an assessee leads to a search of another individual and/or further investigation/interrogation of third parties. All these steps and recoveries therein would fall within the expression ‘found in the course of search’. (Para 41) Though under Section 271AAA(1) of the Act 1961, the Assessing Officer has the discretion to levy penalty, yet this discretionary power is not unfettered, unbridled and uncanalised. Discretion means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour, it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. (Para 31)

Vinod Kumar vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 209 – S 145 Evidence Act – S 161 CrPC – Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 145 – Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 161 – The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved. (Para 11)

Circumstantial Evidence – When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 10)

Union Of India Vs Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 INSC 210 – S 45 PMLA – Twin Conditions For Bail

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – Section 45 – The consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory, and that while considering the bail application, the said rigours of Section 45 have to be reckoned by the court to uphold the objectives of the PMLA (Para 16)- Merely because the prosecution complaint had been filed and the cognizance was taken by the court that itself would not be the ground or consideration to release the accused on bail, when the mandatory requirements as contemplated in Section 45 have not been complied with. (Para 20)

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – The offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a schedule offence. Hence, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a schedule offence, except the Proceeds of Crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. (Para 19)

CMJ Foundation vs State Of Meghalaya 2025 INSC 211 – University Chancellor Appointment

Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – Section 14(1) – The appointment of the Chancellor, made by the University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law (Para 36)- For the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University, the Sponsor is not the sole authority, and the Visitor also plays a pivotal role. The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor- If a statute provides for the approval of the higher Authority, the order cannot be given effect to unless it is approved and the same remains inconsequential and a dead letter in the eyes of law. (Para 44-45)

Interpretation of Statutes – In the absence of any statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a legal fiction in such eventuality, and creating a fiction through judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature. (Para 42)

Judicial Review – Judicial review lies against a decision-making process and not against the decision itself. (Para 66)

Words and Expressions – ‘Subject to’ means ‘conditional upon’ in law. (para 39) Approval means confirming, ratifying, assenting, sanctioning or consenting to some act or thing done by another. The very act of approval means, the act of passing judgment, the use of discretion, and determining as an adjudication therefrom unless limited by the context of the Statute. (Para 40)

P. Rammohan Rao vs K. Srinivas 2025 INSC 212 – Administrative Law – Functus Officio

Principle of functus officio – Rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio. The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India. (Para 42-3)

Administrative Law – Administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed- If the State Government is compelled to afford an opportunity of hearing to every individual or entity likely to be affected by its administrative decision-making, it would effectively paralyze governance by imposing an undue procedural roadblock. This would place the State in a position where its rule-making authority would be severely constricted, defeating the very purpose of efficient policy implementation and undermining its ability to discharge its administrative duties. (Para 45-47)

Ramesh Mishrimal Jain vs Avinash Vishwanath Patne 2025 INSC 213 – Bombay Stamp Act

Bombay Stamp Act – Article 25 of Schedule 1 – The stamp duty is on the instrument and not on the transaction. Furthermore, it is immaterial, whether the possession of the property has been handed over at the time of execution of the agreement to sell or whether it has been agreed to transfer the possession (Para 9) – When the agreement to sell includes a clause stating that physical possession had already been handed over to the appellant, regardless of the basis of such possession. This satisfies the requirement to treat the instrument as a ‘conveyance’ within the meaning of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, with only the formality of executing the sale deed remaining. (Para 11)

B N Padmanabhaiah And Sons vs R N Nadigar 2025 INSC 214 – Locus Standi

Summary– Trial Court partly decreed suit – First Appellate Court set aside decree- High Court decreed the suit – While allowing appeal, SC observed: Plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the previous suit and they made no attempt to implead themselves therein, having complete knowledge of the earlier round of litigations between the appellant and the State, they have no locus standi to file the present suit, specially in a representative capacity, wherein they are attempting to obtain reliefs for respondent No.2/State, which itself is barred from encroaching the suit property. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.

ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 215 – S 20 Contract Act – Mistake

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 20 – A mistake may be unilateral or mutual, but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional, it ceases to be a mistake. Mistakes or errors, though avoidable, are committed inadvertently. They have varied consequences in law. As per Section 20 whereby both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to matter of fact essential to an agreement, the agreement is void. The explanation to Section 20 says that an erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of an agreement is not deemed to be a mistake as a matter of fact. This will not be a case covered by Section 20 of the Contract Act. (Para 5)

Mehatar vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 216 – Murder Conviction Set Aside – Witness Testimony Partly Unreliable

Criminal Trial – When the witness is found to be wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty, inasmuch as the conviction could be based on the testimony of such a witness- Equally when the testimony of a witness is found to be wholly unreliable again the difficulty would not arise because such an evidence will have to be discarded. The difficulty arises when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such a case, the conviction could not be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness. (Para 18)

Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. vs State Of Goa 2025 INSC 217 – Writ Jurisdiction – Res Judicata

Constitution of India – Article 226 -The principle of res judicata applies even to petitions arising for decision in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution (Para 24)

Res Judicata – For the principle of res judicata to be applied in the subsequent proceeding, it must be between the same parties and the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding must be the same as in the previous proceeding. (Para 22)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Mahadeo Krishna Naik 2025 INSC 218 – Labour Law – Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Burden Of Proof

Industrial Dispute – Back wages – If the employee pleads that he was not gainfully employed, he cannot possibly prove such negative fact by adducing positive evidence. In the absence of any contra-material on record, his version has to be accepted.- After the employee pleads his non-employment and if the employer asserts that the employee was gainfully employed between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the onus of proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion having regard to the cardinal principle that ‘he who asserts must prove’. Law, though, seems to be well settled that if the employer by reason of its illegal act deprives any of its employees from discharging his work and the termination is ultimately held to be bad in law, such employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be restored with all that he would have received but for being illegally kept away from work. This is based on the principle that although the employee was willing to perform work, it was the employer who did not accept work from him and, therefore, if the employer’s action is held to be illegal and bad, such employer cannot escape from suffering the consequences. However, it is elementary but requires to be restated that while grant of full back wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case with sufficient proof has to be set up by the employer to escape the burden of bearing back wages. (Para 44)

Legal Maxims – Suggestio falsi and suppresio veri – suggestio falsi and suppresio veri embody concepts of unethical conduct of a party having serious consequences in various fields including law- suggestio falsi is a false representation or a misleading suggestion while suppresio veri connotes suppression of the truth; an indirect lie, whether by words, conduct, or artifice. It is a type of fraud. (Para 23)

Industrial Disputes – The law of evidence per se does not apply to industrial adjudication. Nevertheless, the general principles do apply. In any event, in industrial adjudication, principles of natural justice have to be complied with. Fairness in procedure has developed as the third limb of natural justice. (Para 28) To be relevant, a piece of evidence relied on by a party must be shown to have some logical connection to the case and its admission would be necessary to prove or disprove a fact. Once the evidence is found to be relevant and is admitted arises the question of its probative value. Probative value, as is well-known, refers to the weight or persuasive power of the evidence. It is not always necessary that a piece of evidence found relevant to a case would still demand significant probative value. An assessment has to be made by the court as to how convincing or persuasive the evidence is and how effective it would be to prove or disprove a fact. (Para 27)

Code of Civil Procedure – Section 114 and Order XLVII, CPC – The court can look into any document, having a bearing on the lis decided earlier, which was not on record because despite exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced by a party. It would invariably reduce to an examination as to whether the document has such intrinsic worth that if the same had been produced, the outcome could have been different. (Para 35)

Industrial Dispute – Back wages – Ordering back wages to be paid to a dismissed employee – upon his dismissal being set aside by a court of law – is not an automatic relief; grant of full or partial back wages has to be preceded by a minor fact-finding exercise by the industrial adjudicator/court seized of the proceedings. Such exercise would require the relevant industrial court or the jurisdictional high court or even this Court to ascertain whether in the interregnum, that is, between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the employee has been gainfully employed. If the employee admits of any gainful employment and gives particulars of the employment together with details of the emoluments received, or, if the employee asserts by pleading that he was not gainfully employed but the employer pleads and proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the court, the quantum of back wages that ought to be awarded on reinstatement is really in the realm of discretion of the court. Such discretion would generally necessitate bearing in mind two circumstances : the first is, the employee, because of the order terminating his service, could not work for a certain period under the employer and secondly, for his bare survival, he might not have had any option but to take up alternative employment – The courts are loath to award back wages for the period when no work has been performed by such an employee. (Para 43)

Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt.Ltd 2025 INSC 219 – S 74 Contract Act

Indian Contract Act 1872 – Section 74 – The claim for damages will remain confined to what is expressly provided under the Agreement. (Para 29)

Vinod @ Nasmulla vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 220 – Test Identification Parade – Criminal Investigation

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 -A test identification parade is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the accused during trial. The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity – Evidentiary value of the TIP discussed – Referred to In Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1971) 2 SCC 715 – if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification- Once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness. (Para 14)

Criminal Investigation – It is not uncommon for the police to be under pressure to quickly resolve a case having implications on public order and therefore, look for soft targets. (Para 22)

Vasant @ Girish Akbarasab Sanavale vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 221 – S 34 IPC – Common Intention

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 34 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Section 3(5) –Although Section 34 IPC deals with a criminal act which is joint and an intention which is common, it cannot be said that it completely ignores or eliminates the element of personal contribution of the individual offender in both these respects- On the other hand, it is a condition precedent of Section 34 IPC that the individual offender must have participated in the offence in both these respects. He must have done something, however slight, or conduct himself in some manner, however nebulous whether by doing an act or by omitting to do an act so as to indicate that he was a participant in the offence and a guilty associate in it. He must also be individually a party to an intention which he must share in common with others- He must be a sharer both in the ‘criminal act’ as well as in the ‘common intention’ which are the twin aspects of Section 34, IPC. [Para 87-89]

Context: In this case, High Court held the husband-appellant guilty as it found that he never bothered to take his wife to the hospital as he wanted to ensure that she does not survive -Thus it held that the husband could be said to be guilty having shared common intention with his mother – Allowing appeal, SC observed: When the mother-in-law poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire, it is possible that the husband out of sheer fright might have run away from his house after trying to extinguish fire by pouring water on the burning body of his wife. For applicability of Section 106 so as to implicate the husband also in the alleged crime the prosecution has to lay the foundational facts first prima facie indicating his involvement or participation in the alleged crime. His sudden disappearance after the incident is not sufficient to infer common intention.

Tapas Kumar Palit vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 222 – Speedy Trial – Large Number Of Witnesses

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Speedy Trial –Howsoever serious a crime may be the accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 11) If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. The stress of long trials on accused persons – who remain innocent until proven guilty – can also be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pre- trial incarceration. They may also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even ostracized in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources- Delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their Courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the Judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently. (Para 14-15)

Criminal Trial –Where the number of witnesses is large, it is not necessary that everyone should be produced- It is expected of the Public Prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned- The Special Judge should inquire with the Special Public Prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier. (Para 14)

Kamalkishor Shrigopal Taparia vs India Ener-Gen Private Limited 2025 INSC 223 – Ss. 138,141 NI Act – Non-Executive Director Not Liable

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138,141- Mere designation as a director does not conclusively establish liability under Section 138 read with section 141 of the NI Act. Liability is contingent upon specific allegations demonstrating the director’s active involvement in the company’s affairs at the relevant time – Only those who are responsible for the day- to-day conduct of business can be held accountable. (Para 15) Non-executive directors cannot be held liable under section 138 NI Act unless specific evidence proves their active involvement. (Para 19) [Complaint quashed]

Dharamvir Singh vs Rajiv Mehrishi 2025 INSC 224 – Contempt Case

Note: No legal aspect discussed – Appeal against dismissal of contempt case by HC – SC partly allowed appeal.

Sovaran Singh Prajapati vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 225 – S 311,313 CrPC – Fair Trial – Cross Examination – Death Penalty Set Aside – Retrial

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 311 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 348 – principles as governing the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C. : (a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’. (b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon. (c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice. (d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be improper. (e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other. (f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of the application of a judicial mind. (g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross- examination. This power arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution. (Para 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 313 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 351- Quoted from Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction; (ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence; (iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused; (iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused; (v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; (vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC; and (viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered. (Para 32)

Fair Trial – Article 21 guarantees the Right to Fair Trial.The following principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial, can be illustratively deduced : (1) Fair and Just investigation is the starting point of the fair trial process. (2) This process is a triangulation of the rights of the accused, the victim and the community that acts through the state and prosecuting agencies. (3) Process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude. (4) The trial Judge has to play an active role in the search for truth, which a trial, undoubtedly has to be. (5) Bias of all nature, against the accused, the victim, the witnesses; or the cause of/at trial, has to be eliminated. (6) The process of fair trial is to be done to maintain public confidence & uphold the majesty of law. (7) The atmosphere in which a trial is to be conducted in a fair manner has to be in an atmosphere of ‘judicial calm’. (8) Unfair prolongation of trial is an affront to the ideal of fair trial. (9) The ideal of fair trial has protection in the Constitution and in the international legal framework, as a basic human right. (10) The centripodal purpose of fair trial is to ensure that injustice is avoided as far as possible, but equally ‘fair trial’ is not leveraged to a point which would hinder the established procedure of Cr.P.C. In other words, the command of the Code cannot be ignored at the behest of the prosecution or defence, in the name of fair trial – To secure a fair trial, is not a solitary responsibility. The Judge; the investigator; the investigating agency; and the counsel for either side, each have their own responsibility. (Para 10.6)

Criminal Trial – A trial is a fact-finding exercise wherein both parties, i.e., the prosecution and defence, after investigation by the competent authorities, present their versions of events and the role and duty of the Court to determine the truth. While undertaking such determination, the Court is not only to look at the evidence at hand but also ensure that all consideration balances the demand for justice and the rights of the accused. (Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 386 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 427 -A Court in first appellate jurisdiction, has to appreciate the evidence on record, after duly summoning the record of the Courts below, and then arrive at its own finding, irrespective of the order under challenge before it being of conviction or acquittal- When particularly concerned with cases of Capital Punishment, naturally, since a person’s life hangs in the balance, the High Court’s responsibility is accordingly enhanced/heightened. It “must carefully examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the conviction and confirming the sentence of death.”. (Para 18-19)

Public Prosecutor – The job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is, that of an officer of the Court. The prosecuting agency carries the role, primarily, till the time the matter enters the Court. They have a responsibility to examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof. (Para 20) – Referred t0 Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Criminal Trial – Purpose of cross-examination, they are: a) to call into question, credibly the evidentiary value of the witness; b) to bring out such facts, that may favour the cross-examining lawyer’s client; and c) to establish the said witness, is unworthy of belief, and that his credit stands impeached. (Para 26)

International Law – The Indian Constitution enjoins a responsibility upon all persons to foster respect for international law- Even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone’s life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as ‘convicted of an offence’, is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process- All prosecutions and conclusions of either guilt or innocence must give due importance and primacy to these obligations along with constitutional and statutory guarantees as discussed supra. (Para 33)

Tilku Alias Tilak Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 226 -Ss 363,366 IPC – Kidnapping

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 363, 366 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Section 137(2), 87 –Accused convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC – Allowing appeal, SC observed: Even if the finding that prosecutrix was between 16 to 18 years of age is to be accepted, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC would still not be made out as she was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her- From the evidence of the prosecutrix itself, it will be clear that she had voluntarily gone along with the appellant herein, travelled to various places and also resided as husband and wife. (Para 16-19) – Referred to S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras 1964 INSC 185.

Jai Ram vs Som Prakash 2025 INSC 227 -S 263 Indian Succession Act – Limitation

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 263 – District Judge allowed the miscellaneous application filed under Section 263 of the and revoked the grant of Letters of Administration – High Court court set aside this order – Allowing appeal, SC observed: Because there was no objection raised by the respondents before the District Court. Consequently, in the absence of any averment, no issue was raised and no evidence was let in on that aspect of the matter. But, in the absence of such a plea or evidence on the issue of limitation, the High Court could not have set aside the order of the District Court.

Krishna vs Sanjay Kumar 2025 INSC 228 – Motor Accident Compensation

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the order – Motor Accident Compensation enhanced.

State Of Karnataka vs T.N. Sudhakar Reddy 2025 INSC 229 – Prevention Of Corruption Act – Preliminary Inquiry

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988- The preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in every case under the PC Act. If a superior officer is in seisin of a source information report which is both detailed and well-reasoned and such that any reasonable person would be of the view that it prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the preliminary inquiry may be avoided. (Para 51) – The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but merely to ascertain whether the said information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. The scope of such inquiry is naturally narrow and limited to prevent unnecessary harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a cognizable offence are not stifled arbitrarily. Thus, the determination, whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case (Para 24). Referred to Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 [Context: SC set aside HC judgment which had quashed FIR in a corruption case on the ground that no preliminary inquiry was conducted.]

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988- Section 17- Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 : BNSS – Section 173 – PC Act only outlines the procedure for investigation of offences, therefore, as a necessary corollary, Sections 154 (corresponding Section 173 of the BNSS) will be applicable for the registration of FIR in relation to offences punishable under the PC Act – Superintendent of Police is competent to direct the registration of an FIR if he has information about the commission of a cognizable offence, punishable under the PC Act. The former is also competent to simultaneously direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police to register an FIR for the offences under the PC Act, with the understanding that the subsequent investigation will be subject to the restrictions outlined in Section 17 of the PC Act. A composite order to register the FIR and conduct investigation aligns with the statutory framework of the CrPC and the PC Act. (Para 51)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 36, 154 : BNSS – Section 30, 173 – If the officer in charge of a police station can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 154, as a natural corollary by virtue of Section 36 CrPC, superior officers, are equally competent to issue such directions for registration of the FIR. (Para 44)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 : BNSS – Section 173 – If the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police officials are duty-bound to register an FIR, except in cases where individual reputation and relations are at stake, wherein it is advisable to conduct a preliminary inquiry. (para 28)

Fair Investigation -The purpose of fair investigation is to ensure that the accused is afforded all the rights guaranteed to him under the law. As a corollary, an investigation which should be expected to be fair, must focus on collecting evidence that leads to the right conclusion and nothing else. A fair investigation cannot be interpreted to cater to the accused only, rather it must be such that the entire investigation process has a backing of the law, and the due procedure established therein. Thus, the ambit of fair investigation tethers the procedural safeguards in order to remain immune from arbitrary actions of individual investigators. (Para 42)

Interpretation of Statues – Special law overrides the general law. However, when a general law and a special law address the same subject matter, the rule of harmonious construction is to be applied. (Para 35)

Surendra Kumar Jain vs Santobai 2025 INSC 230 – S 5 Limitation Act

Limitation Act 1961 – Section 5 – High Court allowed application seeking condonation of delay of 2,422 days in filing an application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC – Allowing appeal, SC observed: High Court recorded no reason for condoning huge delay in filing application for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed for non- prosecution and failure to deposit requisite court fee.

State Of Punjab vs Trishala Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 231- Punjab VAT Act – Input Tax Credit

Punjab VAT Act – P&H High Court held that on the date of introduction of sub-rule (8) in Rule 21 of the Punjab VAT Rules, the State did not possess any power traceable to the Punjab VAT Act to confine the rate of input tax credit to the reduced rate of tax on the stock in trade i.e. on those concluded transactions where the taxable person had already earned input tax credit at the previous higher rate of tax – Dismissing appeal, SC observed: the interpretation given by the High Court to the applicability of Rule 21(8) of the Punjab VAT Rules read with the amended first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Punjab VAT Act is legally sound and warrants no interference.

Input tax credit – The benefit of input tax credit is traceable to the statute. If the same has to be reduced, which will have an adverse civil consequence upon the beneficiary, it must have the requisite statutory sanction. (Para 41.1)

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2025 INSC 232 – Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel –Withdrawal of No Objection Certificate to commence Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital – HC dismissed writ petition – Dismissing appeal, SC observed: There can be no indefeasible right claimed on the basis of the grant issued, which is clearly illegal. There is no promise offered by the State or the Government by reason of the invalid order issued by the Department – When the officers of the government acts outside the scope of authority, the plea of promissory estoppel would not be available, especially since the doctrine of ultra vires comes into operation and the government cannot be held bound by the unauthorised actions of its officers.

Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs Manohar Govinda Fulzele 2025 INSC 233 – Gratuity Act – Forfeiture – Criminal Proceedings

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 4(6)(b)(ii) – No conviction in a criminal proceeding is necessitated, if the misconduct alleged & proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude – The failure of the employer to initiate a criminal proceeding on the fraud employed by way of the the fabricated/forged certificate produced for the purpose of employment, does not militate against the forfeiture- The only requirement is for the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority to decide as to whether the misconduct could, in normal circumstances, constitute an offence involving moral turpitude, with a further discretion conferred on the authority forfeiting gratuity, to decide whether the forfeiture should be of the whole or only a part of the gratuity payable, which would depend on the gravity of the misconduct. Necessarily, there should be a notice issued to the terminated employee, who should be allowed to represent both on the question of the nature of the misconduct; whether it constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and the extent to which such forfeiture can be made. (Para 10-13) [Disagreed with view taken in Union Bank of India vs. C.G. Ajay Babu (2018) 9 SCC 529, but did not refer the matter to larger bench as it noticed that the statutory provision does not make it a requirement that the misconduct alleged & proved in a departmental enquiry should not only constitute an offence involving moral turpitude, but also should be duly established in a Court of Law -The words “duly established in a Court of Law” cannot be supplied to the provision- It was observed that these observations were obiter dicta.]

Shanti vs National Insurance Company 2025 INSC 234 – Employee’s Compensation Act – Interest

Employee’s Compensation Act 1923 – Section 4A(3) – The interest liability arises on default of the employer, in paying the admitted compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due and if there is such default, necessarily interest shall run at the rate provided. That the interest runs from the date of the accident -The interest statutorily provided is 12 % comes out from the provision itself. The discretion is only in so far as awarding a higher rate of interest; exceeding the prescribed lending rates applicable to scheduled banks. The discretion is only in so far as applying a higher rate, ensuring that it does not exceed the lending rate prescribed for scheduled banks. Hence 12 % simple interest per annum necessarily has to be applied. The legislative intent is very clear insofar as Sub­clause b) of Section 4A(3) conferring a discretion on the Commissioner/Authority to impose a penalty not exceeding 50 % of the amounts awarded while no such discretion is available under clause (a). (Para 5-6)

Varsha Devi @ Varsha Shukla vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 235- Husband’s Complaint Against Wife Quashed

Summary: The complaint instituted by husband alleging that when the marriage with him was subsisting, the wife entered into a second marriage with another person; in which a child was also born – HC refused to interfere with summoning order- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The proceeding initiated, which is challenged herein is malicious and there is no cause to permit continuance of the same.

Techno Prints vs Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation 2025 INSC 236 – Blacklisting – Show Cause Notice – Writ Jurisdiction

Constitution of India – Article 226 -Ordinarily, Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, or the same is tainted with mala fides. [But in this case, SC partly quashed the show cause notice]

Blacklisting – There is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power- An order of blacklisting casts a slur on the party being blacklisted and is stigmatic. Given the nature of such an order and the import thereof, it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to visit every contractor who is in breach of his contractual obligations with such consequences. There have to be strong, independent and overwhelming materials to resort to this power given the drastic consequences that an order of blacklisting has on a contractor. The power to blacklist cannot be resorted to when the grounds for the same are only breach or violation of a term or condition of a particular contract and when legal redress is available to both parties. Else, for every breach or violation, though there are legal modes of redress and which compensate the party like the Corporation before us, it would resort to blacklisting and at times by abandoning or scuttling the pending legal proceedings. (Para 30-33) Quoted from Blue Dreamz Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corp.: 1.In case there exists a genuine dispute between the parties based on the terms of the contract, blacklisting as a penalty cannot be imposed. 2. The penalty of blacklisting may only be imposed when it is necessary to safeguard the public interest from irresponsible or dishonest contractors, and 3. The Corporation being a statutory body, have a higher threshold to satisfy before passing such blacklisting order and therefore, the measures undertaken by it should be reasonable- When there are guiding principles explained by this Court as to when & in what circumstances a blacklisting order can be passed then, such principles should also be borne in mind by the Authority at the time of issuing a show cause notice. (Para 27-29)

Jatinder Kumar Sapra vs Anupama Sapra 2025 INSC 237- Misc. Application

Summary : SC Judgment granting a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to husband directed him to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000 to wife – Husband filed Miscellaneous Application seeking seeking clarification and modification of the judgment to include the arrears in Maintenance Case pending before Family Court, Dwarka, as part of permanent alimony and to close the maintenance case in as much all differences between the parties are fully and finally settled- SC dismissed the M.A by observing thus: The maintenance case pending before the Family Court, Dwarka, stands closed, and any arrears arising from orders passed therein shall not be included in the permanent alimony granted by this Court. The final order of maintenance passed by this Court shall be the full and final adjudication of any maintenance proceedings between the parties, leaving no scope for further claims in this regard.

Jakaria Mondal @ Jakai @ Jikai vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. 2025 INSC 238 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – In the event that the Courts found the evidence submitted by claimant to support his claim of having earnings @Rs.9000/- per month, recourse should have been made to the minimum wages, as may be prescribed, for the relevant point in time, by the competent authority. (Para 12)

In Re: Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail 2025 INSC 239 – S 432 CrPC – Remission Policy – Premature Release

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 473 – (1) Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission. When the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate Government contains such policy guidelines, the aforesaid direction will apply.(Para 21) (2) Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission. The conditions must be such that they are capable of being complied with. The conditions cannot be vague. The conditions cannot be oppressive. When a convict is released by granting relief of permanent remission, it is necessary to ensure that he is rehabilitated in society. It is necessary to consider the nature of the crime he committed. To fix terms and conditions, it is necessary to ascertain the motive for committing the crime for which he was punished. Even criminal background needs to be taken into consideration. Another concern that must be taken care of is public safety. Even the impact on society and the victims of the offence needs to be considered while determining the terms and conditions. In short, the conditions must be such that the same ensures that the criminal tendency of the convicts remains in check, they do not indulge in the commission of crimes, and they are rehabilitated in society. Their proper rehabilitation is most vital as it prevents them from going back to their criminal activities.a) Consideration of various factors which are mentioned by way of illustration is necessary before finalizing the terms and conditions; b) The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and the convict rehabilitates himself in society; c) The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission; and d) The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed. (Para 21,13) (3) Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison. The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities. It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.-An order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. (Para 21)(4)When the Presiding officer’s opinion is sought as per Sub- Sections (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNNS, the Presiding Officer must submit his opinion at the earliest considering the fact that the issue of liberty of the convict is involved. (Para 20)

Constitution of India – Article 72,161 -Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 433A : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 475 The power of the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India and the power of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution to grant pardon, commute the sentence, or remit the sentence remains unaffected by Section 433-A of the CrPC or Section 475 of the BNSS. (Para 3)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 432, 433A : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 473, 475 The power under Section 432 of the CrPC is circumscribed by Section 433-A. It provides that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, the appropriate Government cannot grant remission unless the convict has served at least fourteen years of actual imprisonment. There is an identical provision in Section 475 of the BNSS. This is an embargo on the power of the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the CrPC. (Para 3)

N.K. Taneja vs Maharaj Singh 2025 INSC 240 – Service Law

Summary: HC allowed respondent’s writ petition and set aside termination observing that University had not followed the applicable statute and had not conducted an enquiry – Allowing appeal, SC observed: We are not even made aware as to whether respondent took up employment anywhere outside India after he had taken EOL way back on 25.08.2000. In case respondent has taken up employment outside India and is working or has set up a business outside India, he clearly abandoned his services with the University.

Jaideep Bose vs Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited 2025 INSC 241 – Freedom Of Speech & Expression – Defamation – S 200 CrPC

Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is paramount. At the same time, Those working in the media, particularly, individuals in key positions, authors, etc., must exercise utmost caution and responsibility before publishing any statements, news, or opinions. The power of the media in shaping public opinion is significant and the press possesses the ability to influence public sentiments and alter perceptions, with remarkable speed. Given its vast reach, a single article or report can resonate with millions, shaping their beliefs and judgments, and it has the capability to cause severe damage to the reputation of those concerned, with consequences that may be far-reaching and enduring. This highlights the critical need for accuracy and fairness in media reporting, especially when dealing with matters having the potential to impact the integrity of individuals or institutions. Keeping these aspects in mind, publication of the news articles must be done in public interest and with good faith- Quotes Bulwer Lytton:“The Pen is mightier than the sword”.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 200 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 210 – Upon receiving a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused, if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. (para 13.3)

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 499 : Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Section 356 – Defamation under section 499 IPC necessitates both an intention to harm or knowledge that the imputation is likely to cause harm, and that the imputation must be capable of lowering the reputation of the person in the estimation of others. In other words, the essence of defamation lies not merely in the making of an imputation but in its effect on the perception of the public, thereby impacting the standing of the person in society. (Para 13.2)

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867- The Act imposes a higher degree of responsibility and liability on an editor- Since an “editor” has been defined as the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper, the presumption goes to the extent of holding that he was the person, who controlled the selection of the matter that was published in the newspaper. However, merely because the Act does not mention persons holding other roles in a publication of the company, such as an Editorial Director, or mandate the publication of their names, the same does not imply that such persons cannot be made liable for any defamatory content. The key distinction is that unlike an editor, against whom a statutory presumption is imposed, there is no such presumption against the editorial director at the outset (Para 19.1)- Every newspaper must clearly mention the names of its owner and editor, ensuring transparency in publication. Furthermore, a statutory presumption is cast upon the editor, who is responsible for the selection of content that is subsequently published, making him accountable for the same unless proven otherwise. (Para 13.1)

Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 242 – Scope Of S. 437(6) CrPC – Bail

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 437(6)- Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said Section have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage (Para 11)- Applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail- Where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 437 of the Code by the legislature. (Para 17-18)

Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. vs Central Bank Of India 2025 INSC 243 – TP Act – Equitable Mortgage – Charge

Equitable mortgage –Where under the law no mortgage or charge is said to have been created over a property i.e., no conveyance of a right or interest over the subject property has been effected, yet if the intention of parties to create a mortgage is clear, equity would demand that such intention is not only respected but given some effect to and the said property be deemed to have been mortgaged so as to enable the lender to assert its rights over the same, it is known as an ‘equitable mortgage’ –Distinction between a legal mortgage and an equitable mortgage under the English Law – In the former, there is conveyance or transfer of some proprietary interest in the mortgaged property in accordance with the statute or law whereas in the latter the formalities required for a legal mortgage are not fully satisfied, but the parties’ intentions to create a mortgage are clear as result of which it is deemed as a mortgage.- Where a borrower willingly parts away with any title deed or a document or a promissory note or an undertaking in respect of a property by depositing it with the lender for the purpose of availing any credit facility and upon such deposit, the loan is so advanced by the lender, fairness, good conscience and justice or in other words ‘equity’ would demand that some meaningful significance be given to such act or conduct of the parties, as generally such act of depositing documents against loans is more often than not for no other purpose but to create a mortgage. Thus, a “court of conscience” would give effect to the intention of the parties in the form of an ‘equitable mortgage’ even if there is no formal agreement or a shred of document expressly providing that such deposit is for the purpose of creating a charge OR if the documents so deposited do not necessarily have the effect of transferring or conveyancing any title or interest in the subject property to the lender. (Para 35) Equitable mortgage would be subservient to a legal mortgage – The former does not create any de jure charge or right in the subject property and rather is only a right in personam – Although the legal mortgage would have assumed priority in charge, yet an equitable mortgage may still be enforceable as secondary charge, provided the other considerations such as notice of such mortgage is fulfilled. (Para 53)

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 58,100- ‘Equitable mortgages’ are very much recognized in India under the nomenclature of “charge” in terms of Section 100 of the Act, 1882, and the same will be enforceable as far as possible in terms of the procedure and provisions application to a simple mortgage except those without notice of such charge – Any act of the parties that evinces a clear intention of the parties to create a mortgage though the same might not have been created in terms of Section 58 of the Act, 1882, may still be a valid charge in terms of Section 100 of the Act, 1882. (Para 55-56)

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 59,100-Section 100 does not attract the provisions of Section 59 -A charge may be made without any writing and there is no provision of law which require that such an instrument must be attested or registered. (Para 57)

Mortgage – Where a transaction does not amount to a mortgage but nevertheless can be construed as a preliminary step towards the preparation of a mortgage which will be security thereafter with nothing else done for conveyance or transfer of title or interest, there three recourses may be available to the lender: – (i) He may simply claim that the transaction amounts to an equitable mortgage as it was for the purpose of creating a present or immediate security which a court of equity ought to consider; or (ii) He may claim that there has been a sufficient part performance of the contract, with attending circumstances which a court ought to relieve by permitting the lender to ‘perfect its mortgage’ i.e., to take further steps for the transfer of conveyance of title or interest in order to create a mortgage; or (iii) He may bring a suit for recovery of money and base his claim simply on the ab initio intention of the parties to create a security in the first place and the resultant part-performance of the contract insofar as the loan was extended based on such promise or consideration of security. (Para 61)

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 58(f)- A mortgage by deposit of title deeds is for all purposes a ‘legal mortgage’ and not an equitable mortgage- Deposit of title deeds is one of the many forms of mortgages whereunder there is a transfer of interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan. The three requisites for a valid mortgage are, (i) debt; (ii) deposit of title deed; and (iii) an intention that the deed shall operate as security for the debt. In other words, when the debtor deposits with the creditor title deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage and no registered instrument is required under Section 59 of the Act, 1882 as in other classes of mortgage. It is essential to bear in mind that the essence of a mortgage by deposit of title deeds is the actual handing over by a borrower to the lender of documents of title to immovable property with the intention that those documents shall constitute a security which will enable the creditor ultimately to recover the money which he has lent. Whether there is an intention that the deed shall be security for the debt is a question of fact to be decided in each case on its own merits. The said fact will have to be decided just like any other fact based on legal presumptions, oral, documentary and/or circumstantial evidence. (Para 49-51)

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Section 54 – A contract of sale i.e. an agreement of sale does not itself create any interest in or charge on any property – Referred to Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 (para 20)

Legal Maxims – ‘Quod fieri debuit pro facto censetur’ – What ought to have been done is considered as done’. (Para 34)

Equity – Equity cannot supplant the law and can only supplement it. Thus, where the law is unambiguous and clear, equity will always yield to the law. (Para 53)

Transactions – Between the registered and unregistered transactions, the registered transaction creates the dominant right or title – Though the transaction evidenced by the prior unregistered document is valid in itself, yet any title or interest created by it is liable to be defeated under the rule of priority by a valid later and legal sale or mortgage evidenced by a duly registered document.(Para 65)

State Of Uttarakhand vs Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal 2025 INSC 244- Appeal Against Acquittal By HC – Benefit Of Doubt

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – Unless the view taken by the High Court is found to be totally perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, if two views are possible and one of the views is taken by the High Court merely because the other view appears to be a possible view, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding of acquittal. (Para 13)

Criminal Trial – In a criminal case, if there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person. (para 20)

Rupa And Co. Limited vs Firhad Hakim 2025 INSC 245 – Art. 226 Constitution – Mediation

Constitution of India – Article 226– Under the constitutional scheme, a writ issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has not been interfered with by this Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, by all the authorities who are bound by such a writ. The majesty of law requires that due obedience has to be given to the command of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it is not interfered with by this Court. (Para 12) [Context: Supreme Court criticized Calcutta High Court for diluting its earlier orders and observed : The High Court having, on earlier occasions, emphasized the necessity to abide by the command of its directions and also issuing notice to the Chief Secretary to comply with the order, ought not to have directed the parties to mediation.]

Mediation – Mediation has to be by the consent of both the parties. Mediation cannot be thrusted upon either of the parties. (Para 9)

Hitesh Umeshbhai Mashru vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 246 – Anticipatory Bail

Note: No legal aspects discussed – SC allows appeal against HC judgment that dismissed anticipatory bail application.

Udhaw Singh vs Enforcement Directorate 2025 INSC 247 – PMLA – Bail

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – When the trial is not likely to be concluded within few years, the decision in the case of V.Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement will apply – Distinguished Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad : there was no departure made from the law laid down in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb and V.Senthil Balaji [Context: SC allows appeal filed by PMLA accused against order denying bail]

State Of Rajasthan vs Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 INSC 248 – Permissibility Of Second FIR

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 : BNSS 2023 – Section 173 – Principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: (1) When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. (2) When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. (3)When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. (4) When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. (5)Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different. (Para 9) [Context: SC set aside HC judgment which quashed the second FIR on the ground that FIRs were in regard to the same offence and observed: The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited. The second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR. Quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society. ]

Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) 2024 INSC 249 -Senior Advocate Designation – AoRs

Advocates Act 1961- Section 16 – An advocate can be designated as a senior advocate if:- a) He consents to such designation; and b) The Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction – This provision does not contemplate any application being made by any advocate for seeking designation as a senior advocate. (Para 31-32)

Senior Advocate Designation process – Both decisions In Indira Jaisingh’s Case needs Reconsideration– Whether the Court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that. If the legislature intended to allow advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section (2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this Court or High Courts to take the consent of advocates before designation- Experience – Mere experience in terms of number of years of practice is not sufficient. Our concern is whether 10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only based on experience or the number of years of practice. It is worth considering whether only the number of years put in practice has any nexus with ‘standing’ within the meaning of Section 16(2) –Interview – If an advocate, by virtue of his standing at the Bar, his ability or special knowledge, deserves designation as a senior advocate, the question which arises is, by making such an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate? Are we not converting the process of designation into a selection process? whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested- Secret Ballot – The issue of permitting voting by secret ballot needs serious reconsideration- whether the Judges should openly discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before them on the judicial side – Trial Court lawyers – Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practising in our Trial Courts to get designated- designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High Courts.-Registrar (Judicial) directed to place a copy of this judgment before Chief Justice of India to consider whether the issues flagged deserve to be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength. (Para 43,45)

Supreme Court Rules 2013 – Advocates on Record – (i)When a petition/appeal is not drafted by the advocate- on-record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this Court. Therefore, when an advocate-on-record receives a draft of a petition appeal/counter-affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit. After reading the case papers, if he has any doubt, he must get the doubt clarified either by contacting the client or his local advocate. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits. An advocate-on- record is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the 2013 Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocate-on- record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates. Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper proceedings and affidavits before this Court to assist the court in dispensing justice. He must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court in deciding cases. The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end after filing a case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and effectively assist the Court; (ii) It is the obligation of the advocates on record not to merely lend their names to petitions/appeals drafted by somebody else. If they do that, the very purpose of making a provision for setting up the institution of advocates-on-record will be frustrated. (iii) If advocates-on-record start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits, it may directly impact the quality of justice rendered by this Court. Therefore, if any advocate-on-record commits misconduct or is guilty of conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record, an action against him as per Rule 10 of Order IV is warranted. (Para 44)

Constitution of India – Part VI – Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of India, in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to our trial and district courts – SC/HCs referred in this judgment as ‘Higher Constitutional Courts’. (Para 43)

Chief Manager Of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Haneef Khan 2025 INSC 250 – Backwages

Note – No legal aspects discussed – SC partly allows appeal against HC order which granted full back wages- For nearly ten years the respondent herein, without performing any of his duties, cannot at the same time seek full back wages.

Sajid Khan vs L Rahmathullah 2025 INSC 251 – Equivalence – Recruitment Matters

Public Appointments – Equivalence -In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the candidates and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, courts have no reason to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence- The burden to show that the recruiting authority accepted the qualifications of the appellants illegally or arbitrarily was on the applicants who had approached the CAT by filing OAs- “The terms and conditions of service are [intended to be] construed reasonably, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in them.” (Para 18- 23) [Context: SC set aside CAT Order that set aside selection]

Racing Promotions Private Limited vs Dr. Harish 2025 INSC 252 – Judicial Review – Contractual Matters

Constitution of India – Article 226 – The scope of judicial review in matters concerning contractual relationship of the State or its instrumentality with private participation, particularly as regards the scope and ambit of work and finances, are limited. (Para 20)

Sports Development Authority – Sports Development Authority is an instrumentality of the State and acts as a nodal Governmental Authority for promoting sports and the welfare of sports persons. (Para 20)

Bank Of Baroda vs Farooq Ali Khan 2025 INSC 253 -Ss. 94-100 IBC – Judicial Review

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Section 94-100 –The appointment of a resolution professional, at the very threshold, is statutorily mandated under Section 97 of the IBC – Adjudicating Authority does not adjudicate any point at this stage and need not decide jurisdictional questions regarding existence of the debt before appointing the resolution professional – This is because Section 99 requires the resolution professional to, at the first instance, gather information and evidence regarding repayment of the debt, and ascertain whether the application satisfies the requirements of Section 94 or Section 95 of the IBC. The existence of the debt will first be examined by the resolution professional in his report, and will then be judicially examined by the Adjudicating Authority when it decides whether to admit or reject the application under Section 100. (Para 9) – Referred to Dilip B. Jiwrajka v. Union of India (2024) 5 SCC 435.

Constitution of India – Article 226 – When statutory tribunals are constituted to adjudicate and determine certain questions of law and fact, the High Courts do not substitute themselves as the decision-making authority while exercising judicial review- While there is no exclusion of power of judicial review of High Courts, and the limits and restraint that the constitutional court exercises and must exercise are well articulated (Para 11) [Context: SC set aside HC judgment which interdicted the personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC ]

Vishal Shah vs Monalisha Gupta – 2025 INSC 254 – Domestic Violence Act – Passport Impounding – Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage – Permanent alimony

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – There is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act. (Para 21)

Passports Act, 1967 -Section 10(3) – Rules of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport – (Para 42-56) Referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.[Context: In this case, the appellant-husband’s passport was impounded on the mere premise that the respondent-wife has filed numerous cases before the various courts in India- SC held that is act of impounding was ex-facie illegal]

Constitution of India – Article 142 –Court has discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown (Para 24) the factors to be examined inter alia include the period of cohabitation between the parties after marriage; the last cohabitation among the parties; the period of separation; the nature and the gravity of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and such other similar factors. (Para 25)

Permanent Alimony –List of factors to be looked into while deciding the question of permanent alimony: i. Status of the parties, social and financial. ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children. iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and employment statuses. iv. Independent income or assets owned by the party. v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial home. vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities. vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife. viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities. (Para 40)

State Of Kerala vs Moushmi Ann Jacob 2025 INSC 255 – Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act – Reclamation – Fee

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Government Notification exempting the payment of fee upon reclamation of land originally reflected in the records of the State as ‘paddy land’ – (a) lands up to 25 cents as on 30th December 2017 can seek a change of category without having to pay any fee; (b) when a category change is sought in respect of land(s) that exceeds the limit of 25 cents, such a change shall be permissible upon having paid 10% of the fair value of such land- The exemption is only intended for lands up to 25 cents [Context: SC set aside HC judgment which held that fee payable by a person would be calculable for the portion of land that is in excess of 25 cents, since that much stands exempted.]

Legislation -A Notification issued in furtherance of an Act is a form of delegated legislation. (Para 13) A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same level of immunity as a plenary legislation enacted by the State legislature since the former is to yield to the plenary legislation. (Para 14)

Constitution of India – Article 14 – The State is permitted reasonable classification – The solitary, but all-important principle in this regard is that such classification should have a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Exemption Notification- A person, who claims the exemption or concession, must establish that he is so entitled. Such a Notification, it is also settled, is to be interpreted strictly. (Para 15)

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ashok Bhoi 2025 INSC 256 – Last Seen Theory

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 – Last Seen Theory – If the prosecution proves by leading reliable evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden would be shifted on the accused to explain the said incriminating evidence either in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or by leading evidence in his defence or even by bringing out the facts during the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The accused’s failure to present evidence on his behalf may be treated by the court as confirming the presumptions that may arise therefrom, nonetheless, that presumption alone, taking recourse to Section 106, would not be sufficient to convict an accused. The prosecution has to discharge its burden to prove the other circumstances in the case based on circumstantial evidence, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and clinching evidence. (Para 9)

Quotable Quotes:  Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape on fanciful doubts is not doing justice according to law. However, it is also well settled that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. (Para 10)

JSW Steel Ltd. vs Board Of Trustees Of Mumbai Port Trust 2025 INSC 257 – Art. 226 – Writ Petition

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Lapse of time alone not a ground to close the matter when it is a result of systemic delay – High Court has to answer the question of law when it does not really involve a disputed factual setting (Para 6-7) [Context: SC set aside HC judgment that disposed writ petition- Remanded matter to HC]

Surinder Dogra vs State 2025 INSC 258 – Criminal Case – Concurrent Conviction Upheld

Note: No legal aspects discussed – Accused concurrently convicted under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code of 1989 and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Appeal dismissed.

State Of Odisha vs Sudhansu Sekhar Jena 2025 INSC 259 – Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules – Work­-charged vs Job Contract Employee

Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992- There is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work­ charged establishment vis-à-vis those who are in job contract establishment- Work­-charged employees who have worked in the establishment for a period of five years or more without interruption and are subsequently appointed to the same or another post in temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment, the period of service rendered by him/her in a work­-charged establishment shall qualify for pension – in case of a job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable establishment, only that much period as job contract service shall be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible for pensionary benefits. (Para 15)

Delay and Laches – Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over their rights. Be it the State. (Para 3)

Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs State Of Assam 2025 INSC 260 – S 27,106 Evidence Act – Last Seen Together

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 27 –The word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object.’ Discovery of fact arises by reason that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place which includes discovery of the object, the place from which it is discovered and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. (Para 38)

Criminal Trial – Motive – In a case where direct evidence of eye witness is available, motive loses its importance. But absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Para 49) [Context: SC acquitted the accused overturning his conviction by the Gauhati High Court and the Sessions Court for kidnapping, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.]

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Balveer Singh 2025 INSC 261 -Ss. 106,118 Evidence Act – Child Witness

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 118 – Principles on appreciation of evidence of Child witness: (I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness and his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly. (II) As per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary examination must be conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain if the child-witness is capable of understanding sanctity of giving evidence and the import of the questions that are being put to him. (III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the Trial Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and must clearly state why he is of such opinion. (IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the preliminary examination and the demeanour of the child and their ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally must be recorded by the Trial Court. The correctness of the opinion formed by the Trial Court as to why it is satisfied that the child witness was capable of giving evidence may be gone into by the appellate court by either scrutinizing the preliminary examination conducted by the Trial Court, or from the testimony of the child witness or the demeanour of the child during the deposition and cross-examination as recorded by the Trial Court. (V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be competent to depose i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational answers would be admissible in evidence. (VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the child witness during the course of its deposition and cross-examination and whether the evidence of such child witness is his voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of others. (VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever. (VIII)Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (IX) Child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility of tutoring. If the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. (X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly produce two broad effects in their testimony; (i) improvisation or (ii) fabrication. (i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been altered or new details are added inconsistent with the version of events not previously stated must be eradicated by first confronting the witness with that part of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the omission or contradiction. If such omission or contradiction is admitted there is no further need to prove the contradiction. If the witness denies the omission or contradiction the same has to be proved in the deposition of the investigating officer by proving that part of police statement of the witness in question. Only thereafter, may the improvisation be discarded from evidence or such omission or contradiction be relied upon as evidence in terms of Section 11 of Evidence Act. (ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is alleged to be doctored or tutored in toto, then such evidence may be discarded as unreliable only if the presence of the following two factors have to be established being as under: – Opportunity of Tutoring of the Child Witness in question whereby certain foundational facts suggesting or demonstrating the probability that a part of the testimony of the witness might have been tutored have to be established. This may be done either by showing that there was a delay in recording the statement of such witness or that the presence of such witness was doubtful, or by imputing any motive on the part of such witness to depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such witness in falling prey to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion that there is a possibility of the witness in question being tutored is not sufficient. Reasonable likelihood of tutoring wherein the foundational facts suggesting a possibility of tutoring as established have to be further proven or cogently substantiated. This may be done by leading evidence to prove a strong and palpable motive to depose falsely, or by establishing that the delay in recording the statement is not only unexplained but indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice or by proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring and was influenced by someone else either by cross-examining such witness at length that leads to either material discrepancies or contradictions, or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness rife with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony, or through such degree of incompatibility of the version of the witness with the other material on record and attending circumstances that negates their presence as unnatural. (XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating certain parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason to discard her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is in substance being deposed by the child witness is something that he or she had actually witnessed. A child witness who has withstood his or her cross-examination at length and able to describe the scenario implicating the accused in detail as the author of crime, then minor discrepancies or parts of coached deposition that have crept in will not by itself affect the credibility of such child witness. (XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored part, in case such remaining untutored or untainted part inspires confidence. The untutored part of the evidence of the child witness can be believed and taken into consideration or the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile witness. (Para 58)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106 – Principles of Law governing the Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act- court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.Section 106 obviously refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the accused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge which would render the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him. Section 106 has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place. The intention underlying the act or conduct of any individual is seldom a matter which can be conclusively established; it is indeed only known to the person in whose mind the intention is conceived. Therefore, if the prosecution has established that the character and circumstance of an act suggest that it was done with a particular intention, then under illustration (a) to this section, it may be assumed that he had that intention, unless he proves the contrary. (Para 76-79)

Criminal Trial – Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case : a. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. b. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. c. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. d. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. e. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. f. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. g. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. h. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. i. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. j. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. k. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. l. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. m. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. n. The evidence of an interested and/or related witnesses should not be examined with a coloured vision simply because of their relationship with the deceased. Though it is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence that their evidence ought to be examined with greater care and caution to ensure that it does not suffer from any infirmity. The court must satisfy itself that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth. Only if there are no contradictions and the testimony of the related/interested witness is found to be credible, consistent and reasonable, can it be relied upon even without any corroboration. At the end of the day, each case must be examined on its own facts. There cannot be any sweeping generalisation. (Para 56)

Criminal Trial – Though there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: – (i) Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; (iii) The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (iv) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 61)

Dr. Poornima Advani vs Government Of NCT 2025 INSC 262 – Doctrine Of Restitution – Interest – Compensation

Compensation – When a person is deprived of the use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to be compensated for the deprivation which may be called interest or compensation. Interest is paid for the deprivation of the use of money in general terms which has returned or compensation for the use or retention by a person of a sum of money belonging to other. (Para 17)

Doctrine of Restitution – If on facts of a case, the doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest should follow. Restitution in its etymological sense means restoring to a party on the modification, variation or reversal of a decree or order what has been lost to him in execution of decree or order of the Court or in direct consequence of a decree or order. The term “restitution” is used in three senses, firstly, return or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or status, secondly, the compensation for benefits derived from wrong done to another and, thirdly, compensation or reparation for the loss caused to another. (Para 25)

Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 263 – Criminal Trial – Identity Of Accused

Criminal Trial – When the prosecution alleges that a particular person has committed an offence, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused as the person who has committed the offence by adducing evidence. [ Context: SC acquits accused allowing appeal against HC judgment which had convicted them under Section 304 Part II IPC]

Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh vs Bihar Legislative Council 2025 INSC 264 – Art. 212 Constitution – Expulsion From BLC – Proportionality Doctrine

Constitution of India – Article 212 – The action of the Ethics Committee neither forms part of the ‘Proceedings of the Legislature’ nor is it tantamount to a ‘Legislative Decision’. (Para 23) [Context: Supreme Court on maintainability of writ petition filed by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, who was a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC) and Chief Whip of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), challenging his expulsion from the Council. Court directed that he be reinstated as a member of the BLC with immediate effect.]

Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – Legislature – A few guiding principles for courts to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s). An indicative list of such parameters includes: (a) Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House; (b) Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House; (c) The previous conduct of the erring member; (d) The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism; (e) Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member; (f) Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect; (g) Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and (h) Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members. (Para 64)

Constitution of India – Article 212 – The prohibition under Article 212(1) operates only with respect to the scrutiny of ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ on the touchstone of ‘Irregularity of Procedure’. It does not oust the power of judicial review of the decisions of the Legislature, whether Legislative or Administrative, on the grounds of illegality or unconstitutionality. (Para 23) ‘Proceedings in the Legislature’ comprise the formal steps, debates, and motions undertaken to facilitate deliberations within the House. It is a structured mechanism that ensures due consideration of a proposed measure, allowing for discussion, amendment, and scrutiny before reaching a final resolution. These procedural steps are not ends in themselves but are designed to channel legislative discourse towards a definitive outcome- A ‘Legislative Decision’ is the culmination of the legislative procedure—the formal expression of the will of the House on a given matter. While Proceedings of the Legislature provide the framework within which members exercise their deliberative functions, the Legislative Decision is the authoritative determination that follows such deliberation. These decisions of the Legislature, though emanating from a coordinate branch of Government, are not immune from scrutiny by Constitutional Courts. Judicial review of Legislative Decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy. (Para 13-14)

Constitution of India – Article 142- The extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, may be invoked in cases where remitting the matter would result in undue delay and where the interests of justice demand a swift resolution – Court can transcend procedural limitations and provide equitable relief in cases where rigid adherence to legal provisions may result in injustice. When the established remedies fall short of addressing exceptional circumstances or fail to meet the demands of justice, this Court, as the final arbiter, must invoke its constitutional powers to bridge the gap and ensure a just, fair, and equitable resolution.(Para 84)

Legal Maxims – ‘Expression unius est exclusion alterius’ -Whatever has not been included has, by implication, been excluded. (Para 15)

Doctrine of proportionality – doctrine of proportionality is fundamentally embedded in the concept of fairness in action across domestic, foreign, and international legal systems. This principle ensures that measures taken are appropriate, necessary, and balanced in relation to the objectives they seek to achieve. Proportionality is deeply intertwined with the principles of the Rule of Law and natural justice, as it guards against arbitrary or excessive actions. Consequently, it is interpreted as an implicit requirement in almost every legal provision, unless it is explicitly barred by the legislation itself. (Para 54)

Administrative Law – Distinction between legislative and administrative functions is well recognized in constitutional jurisprudence. When a legislative body frames rules under Article 208 and subsequently enforces them through disciplinary measures, such enforcement is an exercise of administrative power rather than legislative power. (Para 18) if such an administrative decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of constitutional rights, it is open to judicial intervention in the same manner as any other executive action of the State. Determining whether an impugned action or breach is an exempted irregularity or justiciable illegality is a matter of judicial interpretation and would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of Constitutional Courts. (para 20)

Constitution of India – Article 32, 226 – There is no absolute bar on the Constitutional Courts to examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed on a member while reviewing the validity of the action taken by the House. By focusing on the proportionality of punishment, courts must ensure that justice aligns with constitutional values and societal norms, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process. (Para 62)

Nirmiti Developers vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 265 -S. 127 MRTP Act

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 127 – The principles underlying in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilize the land for the purpose for which it is reserved in the timeline given or let the owner utilize the land for the purpose as permissible under the town planning scheme. The reservation shall be deemed to have lapsed if no steps are taken for acquisition of the said land within the prescribed period- The landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a landowner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period. The statute has provided a period of ten years to acquire the land under Section 126 of the Act. Additional one year is granted to the landowner to serve a notice for acquisition prior to the amendment by Maharashtra Act 42 of 2015. Such timeline is sacrosanct and has to be adhered to by the State or by the authorities under the State. (Para 47-50)

Hiralal Babulal Soni vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 266 – S 411 IPC – S 114 Evidence Act

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 411- In order to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove (i) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused; (ii) that some persons other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it and (iii) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. (Para 32)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 114 – Invocation of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not at all permissible when the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden- The weakness in the defence or the accused’s failure to substantiate the fact while answering question in his accused statement cannot become the strength of the prosecution. (Para 37)

Suneeti Toteja vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 267 – S 197 CrPC – Deemed Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 197 – Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction – Clarified Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : A separate but concurring opinion had given some guidelines for the consideration of the Parliament, one of which is to the effect that at the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/ complaint in the court to commence prosecution within fifteen days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. However, such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist. (Para 30-31)

Mahaveer Sharma vs Exide Life Insurance Company Limited 2025 INSC 268 – Insurance Law

Insurance – An insurance is a contract uberrima fides. It is the duty of the applicant to disclose all facts which may weigh with a prudent insurer in assuming the risk proposed. These facts are considered material to the contract of insurance, and its non-disclosure may result in the repudiation of the claim. The materiality of a certain fact is to be determined on a case-to-case basis. [Context: In this case, the Court noted that the insured had made a substantial disclosure – and therefore held that the failure to mention about other policies does not amount to a material fact in relation to the policy availed and consequently, the claim could not have been repudiated by the respondent company.]

Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 269 – MSMED Act – Public Procurement Policy

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Order 2012 has force of law as it is formulated in exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act and also encapsulates the purpose and object of the Act; (b) though there is no mandatory minimum procurement ‘right’ for an individual MSE there is certainly a statutorily recognized obligation on the authorities and the bodies under the Act and the Procurement Order 2012 to implement the mandate which is subject to judicial review. (Para 39)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – While exercising judicial review of administrative action in the context of Statutes, laws, rules or policies establishing statutory or administrative bodies to implement the provisions of the Act or its policy, the first duty of constitutional courts is to ensure that these bodies are in a position to effectively and efficiently perform their obligations -The power of judicial review in matters concerning implementation of policy objectives should transcend the standard power of judicial review to issue writs to perform statutory duty and proceed to examine whether the duty bearers, the authorities and bodies constituted properly and also whether they are functioning effectively and efficiently. By ensuring institutional integrity we achieve our institutional objectives. Further, effective and efficient performance of the institutes can reduce unnecessary litigation. (Para 22-23)

Jaya Bhattacharya vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 270 – Service Law – Pension

Service Law – Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial. When the services have been regularized by treating the same as extraordinary leave the same cannot be treated as unauthorised leave for denying the pensionary benefits. (Para 11)

Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs Md. Ehshan 2025 INSC 271 – Tenancy – Bonafide Need

Tenancy Law – Bonafide need – Eviction – The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. (Para 10)

Radhika Agarwal vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 272 – GST Acts – Customs Act – Power To Arrest

Constitution of India – Article 246-A – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 69 and 70 – Constitutional Validity upheld – The Parliament has the power to make laws regarding GST and, as a necessary corollary, enact provisions against tax evasion. Article 246-A of the Constitution is a comprehensive provision and the doctrine of pith and substance applies. The impugned provisions lay down the power to summon and arrest, powers necessary for the effective levy and collection of GST- The GST Acts, in pith and substance, pertain to Article 246-A of the Constitution and the powers to summon, arrest and prosecute are ancillary and incidental to the power to levy and collect goods and services tax. ((Para 75-77) – Pre-conditions and when and how the power of arrest is to be exercised discussed.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 50, 41B, 41D, 50A, 55A- Customs Act –The customs officers are not police officers. (Para 16)- Section 50 – The obligation to provide grounds of arrest is incumbent upon them. Customs officers must also maintain records of their statutory functions including details like the name of the informant, name of the person who has violated the law, nature of information received by the officers, time of arrest, seizure details, and statements recorded during the course of detection of the offence(s) (Para 24) Section 41-B – Procedures of arrest and the duties of the officer making the arrest – .Although this section refers to the police officer, we believe, it equally imposes a duty on the customs officers. Officers making an arrest are required to bear an accurate, legible, and clear indication of their names to facilitate ease of identification by the arrestee (Para 25)- Section 41-D of the Code is applicable for offences under the Customs Act. Accordingly, a person arrested by a customs officer has the right to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, but not throughout interrogation (Para 26) – Section 55A states that it shall be the duty of the person having custody of the accused to take reasonable care of their health and safety. This provision shall be equally applicable to arrests under the Customs Act. (Para 28) – Stipulations under Section 50A will apply in cases of arrests made by the customs officers. (Para 27)

Customs Act – Section 104(1) – A person arrested as soon as may be is required to be informed of the grounds of such arrest. The grounds of arrest must be given in writing to the arrestee before he is produced before the Magistrate in terms of Section 104(2). This is necessary as it enables the accused to contest and challenge his arrest and seek bail from the court. To deny and not give the grounds in writing would be to deprive the accused of his right in terms of Section 104(1) and also to seek right of bail under the provisions of the Code. (Para 47)

Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – A person summoned under Section 70 of the GST Acts is not per se an accused protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution- Prohibitive sweep of Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not go back to the stage of interrogation. (Para 69)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 438 – It is not essential that the application for anticipatory bail should be moved only after an FIR is filed, as long as facts are clear and there is a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest – The power to grant anticipatory bail arises when there is apprehension of arrest. This power, vested in the courts under the Code, affirms the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect persons from being arrested. (Para 70) Decision in the context of GST Acts which are contrary to the aforesaid ratio should not be treated as binding. (Para 70)

M. S. Ananthamurthy vs J. Manjula 2025 INSC 273- Transfer of Property – Registration Act – Power Of Attorney – Res Judicata

Transfer of Property Act 1882- Section 54,55 – An agreement to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TPA to effectuate a ‘transfer’ -A transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title. (Para 47)

Registration Act – Section 17,49 – Even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject-matter – The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and agreement to sell has been discouraged in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656.

Indian Contract Act 1872 -Chapter X ; Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 – Sections 1A and 2 –The power of attorney is a creation of an agency by which the grantor/donor/executant authorizes the grantee/donee/holder/attorney to do the acts specified on his behalf, which will be binding on the executant as if the acts were done by him.

Indian Contract Act 1872 – Section 202 –The essentials of Section 202 are: first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of ‘principal and agent’ between the parties and secondly, there shall be agent’s interest in the subject-matter of the agency. If both the conditions are fulfilled the agency becomes irrevocable and cannot be terminated unilaterally at the behest of the principal. (Para 35)

Contract Law – While construing a document, a reader should not go by the title to the document or the nomenclature of the document. In such a case, the court is endowed with a duty to see the contents of the document and intention of the parties which can be gathered from the terms of the document and/or from circumstances under which the document was entered into. The intention of the parties can be ascertained from the language used by the parties. A document has to be seen as a whole-(Para 41)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Where the question of title is “directly and substantially” in issue in a suit for injunction, and where a finding on an issue of title is necessary for granting the injunction, with a specific issue on title raised and framed, a specific prayer for a declaration of title is not necessary. As a result, a second suit would be barred when facts regarding title have been pleaded and decided by the Trial Court – Where a finding on title is necessary for granting an injunction and has been substantially dealt with by the Trial Court in a suit for injunction, a direct and specific prayer for a declaration of title is not a necessity- Where a finding on an issue of title is not necessary for deciding the question of possession and the grant of an injunction, or where no issue on title has been framed to decide a suit for injunction, any observation or decision on title would be incidental and collateral and will not operate as res judicata. However, findings on an issue of title in an earlier suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit where the question of title is directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction. (Para 58-59)

Power of Attorney – Even a POA termed as a ‘general power of attorney’ may confer powers that are special in relation to the subject matter. Likewise, a ‘special power of attorney’ may confer powers that are general in nature concerning the subject matter. The essence lies in the power and not in the subject-matter (Para 42) – Mere use of the word ‘irrevocable’ in a POA does not make the POA irrevocable. If the POA is not coupled with interest, no extraneous expression can make it irrevocable. At the same time, even if there is no expression to the effect that the POA is irrevocable but the reading of the document indicates that it is a POA coupled with interest, it would be irrevocable. (Para 4)

A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs Tahsildar 2025 INSC 274 – Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Question Of Facts – Precedent

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is satisfied that the facts are disputed by the State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice. (Para 48) – It would all depend on the nature of the question of fact. In other words, what is exactly, that the writ court needs to determine so as to arrive at the right decision. (Para 53) Mixed questions of law and fact – Mixed question of law and fact refers to a question which depends on both law and fact for its solution. In resolving a mixed question of law and fact, a reviewing court must adjudicate the facts of the case and decide relevant legal issues at the same time. (Para 54)

Precedents -If two decisions of Supreme Court appear inconsistent with each other, the High Courts are not to follow one and overlook the other, but should try to reconcile and respect them both and the only way to do so is to follow that decision whose facts appear more in accord with those of the case at hand. (Para 35)

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – [1] The Repeal Act, 1999 clearly talks about the possession being taken under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976, as the case may be. [2] It is a statutory obligation on the part of the competent authority or the State to take possession strictly as permitted in law. [3] In case the possession is purported to have been taken under Section 10(6) of the Act, 1976 the Court is still obliged to look into whether “taking of such possession” is valid or invalidated on any of the considerations in law. [4] The possession envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999 is de facto and not de jure only. [5] The mere vesting of “land declared surplus” under the Act without resuming “de facto possession” is of no consequence and the land holder is entitled to the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999. [6] The requirement of giving notice under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 10 respectively is mandatory. Although the word “may” has been used therein, yet the word “may” in both the sub-sections should be understood as “shall” because a Court is obliged to decide the consequences that the legislature intended to follow from the failure to implement the requirement. [7] The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18th March 1999. [8] The State has to establish by cogent evidence on record that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (6) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. (Para 41)

Sachin Jaiswal vs Hotel Alka Raje 2025 INSC 275 – S 14 Partnership Act

Indian Partnership Act,1932 – Section 14 – Separate property of an individual partner, can be converted into partnership property. (Para 13) Irrespective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. (Para 13)

Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali vs Tahsildar­i, Special Cell 2025 INSC 276 – Maharashtra Slum Areas Act

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 – A censused slum is also a slum as per Regulation 33(10) DCR and a separate notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is not required.

Pappammal (D) vs Jothi 2025 INSC 277 – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Necessary Party

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order I Rule 10 (2) – The entire purpose of a Trial is to reach the truth of the matter and it is absolutely important that all necessary parties must be heard, before a decision is taken by the Court. (Para 12)

Kanishk Sinha vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 278 – S 156(3) CrPC – Priyanka Srivastava Direction – Prospective

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 156(3) – The direction in Priyanka  Srivastava  vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 that all applications before the Court where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant will be prospective in nature – (Para 4-6)

Judgments – Retrospectivity – The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. The prospective operation of a judgment is normally done to avoid any unnecessary burden to persons or to avoid undue hardships to those who had bona fidely done something with the understanding of the law as it existed at the relevant point of time. Further, it is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many. (Para 3)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Subhash Laxmanrao Bramhe 2025 INSC 279 – Labour Law

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 280 – S 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act – Presumption

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 20-The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot arise on the mere allegation of a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as rightly pointed out by the appellant- Unless proof is offered to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption would not arise – The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that, if there is a demand and acceptance of bribe, then there is a presumption that it is to dishonestly carry out some activity by a public servant, for which, first, proof will have to be offered of the demand and acceptance. It is not otherwise that, if there is a misuse of authority then there is always a presumption of a demand and acceptance of bribe, resulting in a valid allegation of corruption. (Para 22)

Prevention of Corruption Act – Sections 7,13,20 -The proof of demand (or an offer) and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a fact in issue in the criminal proceeding and is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. (Para 12) – Referred to Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 281 – Revision Against Discharge Order – Power To Stay

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 390, 397, 401 – The High Court has the power to suspend the operation of the order impugned in the revision application – The power under Section 390 can be exercised in a revision against an order of discharge – It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused. Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged accused – While exercising power under Section 390 of the CrPC, the normal rule is that the acquitted accused should not be committed to custody, and a direction should be issued to admit him to bail. This normal rule should apply all the more to cases where the challenge is to the order of discharge, as the order of discharge is on a higher pedestal than an order of acquittal- Passing an order under Section 390 directing the discharged accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside. (Para 14-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 390 – As a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the CrPC is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This rule must be applied while exercising power under Section 390 of the CrPC, as the position of the acquitted accused is on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. When an accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted accused to prison be passed under Section 390. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 227,245 – An order of discharge is passed when there is no sufficient material to proceed against the accused. When a discharge order is passed, the person discharged ceases to be an accused. The position of a discharged accused is on a higher pedestal than that of an accused who is acquitted after a full trial. The reason is that a charge can be framed, and an accused can be tried only when there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to proceed against him. An order of discharge is passed when the charge sheet does not contain sufficient material to proceed against the accused. Therefore, he is discharged at the threshold. After an accused is discharged under Section 227 of the CrPC, he is set at liberty as he ceases to be an accused. (Para 12)

Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya vs Mahesh Prakash Ahuja 2025 INSC 282 – S 378 CrPC – Grant Of Leave To Appeal

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 378 – At the stage of considering grant of leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., a prima facie case should be looked into by the High Court, of course, not ignoring the materials on record – How the application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided by the High Court and what are the parameters which the High Court should keep in mind – Referred to State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475 – The principle underlying the above rule lies in the doctrine of human fallibility that “Men are fallible” and “Judges are also men” (Para 7- 12)

National Highways Authority Of India vs IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 283

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Shankar @ Savukku Shankar vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 284

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

District Magistrate/ Collector, Sonbhadra vs Heera Lal 2025 INSC 285

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Arvind Kumar Bhati vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 286

Constitution of India – Article 226 – PIL– SC set aside some directions that were issued by Allahabad HC to the State Government on maintenance of hospitals by the State of Uttar Pradesh, including hospitals in medical colleges and Universities and observed: Certain directions that were given did not fall within the four corners of the writ powers exercised by the High Court, for several reasons, including the reason that they were purely policy matters or dealt with day-to-day administration.

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar 2025 INSC 287

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order.

Chief Manager, Central Bank Of India vs Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd 2025 INSC 288 – Consumer Protection Act – Commercial Purpose

Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 2(1)(d)(ii) – What is to be seen here is that whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the person who has availed the service. (Para 21) [Context: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found the Central Bank of India deficient in service and awarded Rs. 75 lakh in compensation to M/s Ad Bureau, along with litigation costs of Rs. 20,000- In appeal before SC, the issue raised was whether M/s Ad Bureau, as a borrower of a project loan, qualifies as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Allowing appeal and setting aside NCDRC Order, SC observed: The loan’s dominant purpose was profit generation through the commercial venture of film post-production, not merely self-branding for livelihood. ]

Sarita Choudhary vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 289 – Service – Probation – Women In Judiciary – ACR

Judiciary – A greater representation of women in the judiciary, would greatly improve the overall quality of judicial decision making and this impacts generally and also specifically in cases affecting women. – It is not enough to find comfort solely in the growing number of female judicial officers if we are unable to secure for them a sensitive work environment and guidance – While gender is not a rescue for poor performance, it is a critical consideration which must weigh for holistic decision-making at certain times and stages of a woman judicial officer. (Para 17)

ACR – The imprimatur of the Chief Justice to an ACR is an approval of the highest judicial office in the State which is a mandatory requirement.(Para 15.8)

Service Law – Probation – The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case- (Para 12) Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials. Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form. (Para 12.3)

Sachin Yallappa Usulkar vs Vijayata 2025 INSC 290 – Motor Accident Compensation – Minor Involvement

Motor Accident Compensation: Appeal against MACT and HC judgment on findings regarding involvement of Minor in the accident – Partly allowing appeal, SC observed: There is no substantive or direct evidence establishing the involvement of Appellant No. 2/Minor in the accident in question. No evidence can suggest any cogent or unequivocal proof linking Appellant No. 2/Minor as the actual driver of the offending Vehicle at the time of the incident. Accordingly, in the absence of even the slightest credible evidence pointing towards the direct involvement of Appellant No. 2/Minor in the alleged act, the claim against him remains untenable and unsubstantiated.

Pradip N. Sharma vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 291 – Ss. 438,482 CrPC -Anticipatory Bail – Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 438 : BNSS 2023 – Section 482 – Anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre- trial detention. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 : BNSS 2023 – Section 528 – The scope of allowing a prayer for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out – At the stage of investigation, Courts should refrain from preemptively quashing criminal proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of process. When the accused’s contentions relate to factual disputes that need verification through proper investigatory mechanisms, it would be inappropriate to exercise the inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage. (Para 17)

Union Of India vs Man Singh Verma 2025 INSC 292 – S. 439 CrPC – Bail – Compensation

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 439 : BNSS 2023- Section 483 –The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial. In the following decisions, this Court has time and again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of the person in question. – [Context: SC set aside HC judgment directing NCB to pay Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to NDPS accused while disposing his bail application and observed: The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law]

Prabhavathi vs Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation 2025 INSC 293 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – In the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. (Para 11)

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – In compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability. (Para 13)

Pushpa Jagannath Shetty vs Sahaj Ankur Realtors 2025 INSC 294 – S. 24A Consumer Protection Act – Limitation

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24-A – Section 24-A of the Act prescribes the limitation period to be two years. The proviso thereto also provides for the possibility of the commission condoning delays beyond this point, but when doing so, it is to record its reasons- Limitation, while important as a feature of law, is not meant to defeat a substantive right. Efforts, in earnestness, to secure possession of the flats cannot be discounted in order to compute the applicable limitation. (Para 7-11)

Abdul Wahid vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 295 – Murder Case – Concurrent Conviction Set Aside

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment – SC set aside concurrent acquittal in murder case and observed: There is no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death.

Rahul Verma vs Rampat Lal Verma 2025 INSC 296 – Arbitration Agreement – Death Of Party

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 2(1)(g) , 40 – The existence of an arbitration agreement is not affected by the death of a party to the arbitration agreement- An arbitral agreement and the award is enforceable by or against the legal representatives of the deceased- The term ‘partners’ extends to and would include their legal heirs, representatives, assigns or legatees, etc. Persons claiming under the rights of a deceased person are the representatives of the deceased party, and therefore, both the parties to the agreement and their legal heirs are entitled to enforce an arbitral award and are bound by it -The right to sue for rendition of account also survives, ensuring that the legal representatives can assert or defend claims arising from the partnership agreement. (Para 8-10)

Zon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority 2025 INSC 297 – NGT

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment- SC partly allowed appeal against NGT Order.

C.S. Umesh vs T.V. Gangaraju 2025 INSC 298- Practice – For Being Spoken To -Oral Mentioning

Practice and Procedure– Practices of making oral mentions for modification of the orders/judgments by way of a “for being spoken to” deplored – The same cannot be permitted circumventing the legal process of filing a review. (Para 13)

Sharmila Velamur vs V. Sanjay 2025 INSC 299 – Child Custody – Foreign Court Order

Child Custody- The principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child, especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate enquiry in this regard- Such cases must be decided on the sole and predominant criterion of ‘what would serve the interests and welfare’ of the minor-The pre- existing order of a Foreign Court is merely one of the circumstances to consider when assessing the best interests and welfare of the person concerned-his doctrine was evolved to protect children who may, unwittingly, become collateral damage in their parents’ legal disputes. It has gained significance over the past several years, owing to the frequency and ease of migration. To consider the interests of the child, the Court must take into account all attending circumstances and the totality of the situation. The Court must consider the welfare and happiness of the child as the paramount consideration and go into all relevant aspects of welfare including stability and security, loving and understanding care and guidance, and full development of the child’s character, personality, and talents – The Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development, favourable surroundings, and future prospects. Further, over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values also have to be taken note of, as they constitute equal if not more important factors than the others. (Para 32)

In Re: Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services 2025 INSC 300 – Judicial Service – Visually Impaired Candidates Eligible

Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – Rule 6A – Visually impaired candidates are eligible to participate in selection for the posts under the judicial service and hence, Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 is struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates for appointment in judicial service. Rule 7 to the extent of prescribing additional requirement of either a three-year practice period or securing an aggregate score of 70% in the first attempt, is struck down insofar as it applies to PwD candidates. The said rule will be applicable to the PwD candidates insofar as it prescribes the educational and other qualifications as eligibility criteria including the minimum aggregate score of 70% (with relaxation as may be determined like in the case of SC/ST candidates), but without the requirement of either that it should be in the first attempt or that they should have three years’ practice. (Para 68)

Constitution of India – Article 15 ; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – RPwD Act, 2016 has acquired the status equal to that of a ‘super-statute’ and hence, contains the ingredients of a quasi-constitutional law – It is high time that an anti- discrimination clause be included in the Constitution with a specific provision that the State shall not discriminate on the grounds of mental or physical disability in line with the principles as stated in the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 35) The right against disability-based discrimination, as recognized in the RPwD Act 2016, of the same stature as a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that no candidate is denied consideration solely on account of their disability -The principle of reasonable accommodation, as enshrined in international conventions, established jurisprudence, and the RPwD Act, 2016, mandate that accommodations be provided to PwDs as a prerequisite to assessing their eligibility – any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of PwDs, whether through rigid cut-offs or procedural barriers, must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality. The commitment to ensuring equal opportunity necessitates a structured and inclusive approach, where merit is evaluated with due regard to the reasonable accommodations required, thereby fostering judicial appointments that truly reflects the principles of fairness and justice. (Para 67)

Legislation – Super Statute – The term ‘super statute’ was first applied in 2001 by William N. Eskridge and John A. Ferejohn to characterise an ordinary statute that not only reveals intention but also establishes a new normative or institutional framework in the public culture and has a broad effect on the law. As a result, such statutes have a quasi-constitutional significance that exceed its former status as a statute. In the words of the authors, “these super-statutes penetrate the public normative and institutional and institutional culture. (Para 36)

Public Appointments – Recruitment – Relaxation in minimum cut- off marks is permissible, especially when there is a specific power of relaxation available to the appointing authority. (Para 62)

Ram Lal vs Jarnail Singh (D) 2025 INSC 301 – S. 28 Specific Relief Act – Order XX Rule 12A CPC

Specific Relief Act 1963 – Section 28 – The non-payment of the balance sale consideration within the time period fixed by the Trial Court does not amount to abandonment of the contract and consequent rescinding of the same. The real test must be to see if the conduct of the plaintiff will amount to a positive refusal to complete his part of the contract. There must be an element of wilful negligence on the part of the plaintiff before a Court proceeds to invoke Section 28 of the Act and rescind the contract. (Para 49) Merely because rescission of contract was not sought by the judgment debtor the same would not automatically result in extension of time. (Para 26) If during the specified time period the decree holder is not in a position to deposit the balance sale consideration or, in other words, fails to deposit the balance sale consideration and later upon expiry of the specified time period seeks permission to deposit, then it would be within the discretion of the trial court to grant further time to deposit the balance sale consideration or decline- This discretion has to be exercised judiciously keeping in mind various factors like bona fide of the decree holder, the cause for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration in time, the length of delay and also the equities that might have been created during the interregnum period in favour of the judgment debtor. It is the cumulative effect and considerations of such factors that should weigh with the court concerned while permitting the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration beyond the time period that might have been prescribed by the trial court in its final decree.- Just because a decree of specific performance can be executed within 12 years from the date of original decree or from the date the appellate court affirms such decree that, by itself, does not mean that a decree holder deposits the balance sale consideration at his own sweet will. 52. If the appellate court had failed to stipulate any particular time period then it is expected of the decree holder to deposit the same within a reasonable period of time. (Para 50-52)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XX Rule 12A – Rule 12A makes it obligatory for the court to specify in the decree for specific performance of contract for sale or lease of immovable property the date by which purchase money or other sum should be paid by the vendee or lessee. The trial court has jurisdiction to fix time-limit for depositing the money by the decree- holder under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The decree is preliminary in nature and the court retains control over it. (Para 34) Appellate Courts owe a duty to comply with the provisions of Order XX Rule 12A -Where an appeal is filed against the decree passed by the trial court and the appeal is disposed of, the appellate court should specify time to deposit the balance sale consideration- It is too much to say that since the trial court had granted two months time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration the same time period would apply even to the decree that may be drawn by the appellate court. What is executable is the decree passed by the appellate court. The appellate court owes a duty to specify the time period.(Para 50)

Doctrine of merger – Once the judgment passed by the trial court is challenged before the appellate court the judgment and order passed by the trial court would get merged with the judgment of the appellate court irrespective of the fact whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed- The doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be more than one operative decree at a given point of time. The doctrine of merger applies irrespective of whether the appellate court has affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial court. (Para 36-37)

Summary: The appellant filed a suit for specific performance based on a sale agreement – The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration (Rs. 6,86,875 minus Rs. 2,50,000 already paid) within two months – The defendants appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on April 21, 2015, affirming the Trial Court’s decree without specifying a new time limit for depositing the balance amount- In January 2017, the appellant filed an execution petition, seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration (Rs. 4,87,000). The Executing Court allowed this on May 6, 2019, and the amount was deposited on May 20, 2019- The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on August 30, 2022, overturned the Executing Court’s order, ruling the decree unexecutable due to the appellant’s delay (nearly three years after the appeal dismissal) in depositing the balance amount, absent compelling reasons- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and upheld the Executing Court’s order.

Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 302 – Rights Of Breast Feeding Women

Constitution of India – Article 21, 51A(e) -Breast Feeding – The practice of breast- feeding in public places and at workplaces is not stigmatized- Breast-feeding is an integral component of a child’s right to life, survival, and development to the highest attainable standard of health. It is an integral part of a woman’s reproductive process and is essential for the health and well-being of both mother and the child – As the right of a child to be breast-fed is inextricably linked with the mother, she also has the right to breast-feed her child- State has the obligation to ensure adequate facilities and environment to facilitate mothers to breast-feed their children. Such a right and the obligation emanate from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the foundational principle of ‘the best interest of the child’ as enshrined in international law as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Directions issued:Advisory for setting up of the facilities at public places is for the purpose of ensuring privacy and comfort of nursing mothers, who have infants, and for the benefit of infants- Directed Union of India to incorporate the aforesaid advisory in the form of a reminder communication to the Chief Secretary/Administrator of all State Governments/ Union Territories- in the existing public places as far as practicable, the States/Union Territories should ensure that the aforesaid directions are given effect to- Insofar as the public buildings which are at the stage of planning and construction, it may ensure that sufficient space is reserved for the purposes in the form of child- care/nursing rooms.

Ramesh A. Naika vs Registrar General, High Court Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 303 – Death Sentence Commuted

Death Sentence – When sentence of death is imposed, it should only be imposed if the same is possible, even after an objective consideration of all the factors in favour of the person accused of having committed the offence (Para 17) Multiple factors, including the absence of criminal antecedents, may be a ground to commute the sentence of the accused. (Para 14)

Context: Ramesh A. Naika was convicted for murdering his two children, and separately for killing his sister-in-law,and mother-in-law. The Trial Court sentenced him to death, which the Karnataka High Court confirmed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, affirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for the remainder of Naika’s natural life.

Hari Nandan Singh vs State Of Jharkhand 2025 INSC 305 – S 298 IPC – Calling ‘Pakistani’

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 298 – FIR alleged that accused hurried the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” – Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. (Para 19)

Context: According to FIR, The informant claimed that on 18th November 2020, while delivering information to the appellant’s residence as per official duty, the appellant refused to accept the documents initially, abused him by referencing his religion (calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani”), and used criminal force to intimidate him- A charge sheet was filed under Sections 298 (wounding religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), 353 (assault to deter a public servant), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)-The appellant’s discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was dismissed -High Court upheld this dismissal – Supreme Court allowed his appeal and discharged him from criminal case.

State Of Goa vs Namita Tripathi 2025 INSC 306 – Factories Act – Laundry Business – Manufacturing Process

Factories Act 1948 – Section 2(m),2(k) – The business of laundry involving cleaning and washing of clothes including dry cleaning would be squarely covered by the expression “manufacturing process” (Para 33) [Context: High Court quashed the JMFC’s order, holding that dry cleaning does not fall within the definition of “manufacturing process” under Section 2(k) of the Act, as it does not result in a “new marketable commodity” or a transformation of the article into a commercially distinct product- In appeal, Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and held:” “Manufacturing process” has been defined to mean any process for washing or cleaning with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. The linen deposited with the launderer is, after washing and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use. The ingredients of the section are fully satisfied.]

Interpretation of Statutes –Where the words of statute are clear, the plain meaning has to be given effect (Para 33) – Where a statute under consideration itself defines for the purposes of the said Act a certain phrase, a court of law is bound to apply the term as defined except in exceptional cases where the opening part of a definition, ‘anything repugnant in the subject or context’ applies. (Para 41) Social welfare legislation intended to benefit the large community of workers ought to be interpreted in a manner to give efficacy to legislative intent. (Para 30)

Factories Act 1948 – A welfare statute aimed at ameliorating the conditions of the workmen employed in factories. It is a beneficial legislation intended to protect workers from occupational hazards by seeking to impose upon owners and occupiers certain obligations for protecting the workers and securing their employment in conditions conducive to their health and safety. (Para 29)

Shabeen Ahmad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 307 – Dowry Death – Bail

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 304B – Bail – In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of the broader societal impact, given that the offence strikes at the very root of social justice and equality. Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine not only the fairness of the trial but also public confidence in the criminal justice system. (Para 12) when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. (Para 15) [Context: Supreme Court allowed appeals against bail granted to accused by High Court]

Rajnish Singh @ Soni vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 308 – Rape On Promise To Marry

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375- The accused is not liable for the offence of rape if the victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations (Para 35)- In a situation where the woman knowingly maintains the physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of alleged promise made by the accused to marry her.- [Context: Supreme Court quashed a rape case against accused while observing thus: The long gap of 16 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse, continued relations for one and a half decade till the filing of the FIR convinces us that it is a clear case of a love affair/live in relationship gone sour.]

C. Kamalakkannan vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 309

Summary: The appellant, C. Kamalakkannan, challenged his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case stemmed from a forged marksheet submitted by Kumari Amudha for MBBS admission, inflating her marks- The trial court convicted Kamalakkannan in 2016, sentencing him to time already served (22nd October to 16th November 1996) and fines, which were later reduced by the appellate court in 2017. The High Court upheld the conviction- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal citing following reasons: (1)The original postal cover, allegedly bearing Kamalakkannan’s handwriting, was not exhibited in evidence, and only a photostat copy was relied upon, which was insufficient as primary evidence. (2) The handwriting expert’s testimony and report (Exhibit A-31) lacked credibility because the expert did not clearly identify the examined postal cover as the one in question, and the reasoning behind the analysis was not adequately presented or corroborated.

K. Ramasamy vs R. Nallammal 2025 INSC 310 Delay Condonation – Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order IX Rule 13- High Court order condoned a 1312-day delay and set aside an ex-parte decree – Allowing appeal, SC observed: There is falsity writ large, in the submission of the lawyer having misplaced the files. The application to set aside the ex­parte decree was only an afterthought and purely experimental. The law favours the diligent and not the indolent. (Para 11)

C Prabhakar Rao vs Sama Mahipal Reddy 2025 INSC 311 – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree & Delay Condonation

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order IX Rule 13- The procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree will be distinct from the procedure for condoning the delayed filing of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree – The adjudication and determination of a court with respect to setting aside the ex-parte decree are independent of the adjudication with respect to condoning the delay -The remedies against these orders are independent and one remedy would not subsume the other. They must be adopted and pursued independently. (Para 11)

Mukesh Prasad Singh vs The Then Rajendra Agricultural University 2025 INSC 312 – University Statutes – Retiral Scheme

Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976 – The default retiral scheme applicable to the University’s employees is General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, unless the employee has specifically opted for the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. (Para 9)

Anmol vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 313 – MBBS Admission -RPwD Act – ‘Both Hands Intact’ NMC Guidelines

National Medical Commission (NMC) Guidelines for MBBS Admission  – In the guidelines “both hands intact, with intact sensations, sufficient strength and range of motion” are considered essential to be eligible for the medical course- This prescription of “both hands intact…” is completely antithetical to Article 41 of the Constitution; the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the salutary provisions of the RPwD Act. It also indicates a classification which is overbroad and glorifies ‘ableism’ – A prescription such as “both hands intact…” reeks of ableism and has no place in a statutory regulation. In fact, it has the effect of denuding the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the RPwD Act and makes a mockery of the principle of reasonable accommodation- It propagates that persons with typical abilities and with faculties similar to what the majority may have or somehow superior- The “both hands intact…” prescription has no sanctity in law as it does not admit of a functional assessment of the individual candidate, a matter which is so fundamental in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. (Para 21,25, 35) [Context: SC sets aside HC judgment that had upheld the denial of MBBS admission to appellant who is a person with disabilities]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Reasonable Accommodation -Section 2(y) –Flexibility in answering individual needs and requirements is an essential component of reasonable accommodation. There cannot be a “one size fits all” approach. (Para 20)

Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal vs Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth 2025 INSC 314 – S 96 IBC – Moratorium – Consumer Case

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act 2016 – Section 96 ; Consumer Protection Act – Section 27 – The penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and do not constitute “debt” under the IBC- practices. The penalties under Section 27 of the CP Act are aimed at compelling compliance and cannot be equated with recovery of an outstanding debt – The moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC does not extend to regulatory penalties imposed for non-compliance with consumer protection laws. (Para 35,40)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act 2016 – Section 14,96 – Distinction between the moratorium applicable to a corporate debtor under Section 14 of the IBC and the interim moratorium applicable to individuals and personal guarantors under Section 96 of the IBC-The former is much broader in scope and stays all proceedings against the corporate debtor, including execution and enforcement actions. However, Section 96 of the IBC is more limited in its scope, staying only “legal actions or proceedings in respect of any debt.” Unlike corporate insolvency proceedings, where the goal is a comprehensive resolution of the company’s liabilities, individual insolvency proceedings are designed primarily for restructuring personal debts and providing relief to the debtor. The legislative intent behind limiting the scope of the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC must be respected, and a blanket stay on all regulatory penalties would result in defeating the objectives of consumer protection laws. (Para 30)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act 2016 – Section 14,96 – While civil proceedings are generally stayed under IBC provisions, criminal proceedings, including penalty enforcement, do not automatically fall within its ambit unless explicitly stated by law. The penalties imposed by the NCDRC are regulatory in nature and arise due to non- compliance with consumer protection laws. They are distinct from “debt recovery proceedings” under the IBC. (para 27)

K. S. Mehta vs Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd. 2025 INSC 315 – Ss. 138,141 NI Act – Non-Executive Directors

Negotiable Instruments Act 1882 – Section 138,141 – Non-executive and independent director(s) cannot be held liable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act unless specific allegations demonstrate their direct involvement in affairs of the company at the relevant time – Mere designation as a director is not sufficient; specific role and responsibility must be established in the complaint – Only those who are responsible for the day- to-day conduct of business can be held accountable- The mere fact that they attended board meetings does not suffice to impose financial liability on them, as such attendance does not automatically translate into control over financial operations. (Para 15-18)

M.S. Nagabhushan vs D.S. Nagaraja 2025 INSC 316 – S 138 NI Act – Liability

Note: No legal aspect discussed in the judgment – SC held that the complainant failed to lead evidence to conclusively establish that the entire amount under the post-dated cheques was a legally enforceable debt against the appellant- accused and therefore allowed appeal against HC judgment.

Sanjay vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 317 -Last Seen Theory -Circumstantial Evidence – Extra-judicial Confession

Criminal Trial – Last Seen Theory – Conviction cannot be solely based on last-seen theory. (Para 32) – Circumstantial Evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must convince the Court that circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else, as also lack of his innocence. (Para 15) It is improbable that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking for her. (Para 19) When the recovery of the body of the deceased is from a field which is accessible and open to the public, it further warrants need for an independent witness. (Para 29)- Extra-judicial confession – The principles of the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession – Referred to Kalinga v. State of Karnataka: The standard required for proving an extra-judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra- judicial confession. (Para 24)

Suresh Vs State 2025 INSC 318 – S.32 Evidence Act – Dying Declaration

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 32 – Dying Declaration -In cases where the dying declaration is suspicious, it is not safe to convict an accused in the absence of corroborative evidence- That a dying declaration is an important piece of evidence and a conviction can be made by relying solely on a dying declaration alone as it holds immense importance in criminal law. However, such reliance should be placed after ascertaining the quality of the dying declaration and considering the entire facts of a given case – If a dying declaration is surrounded by doubt or there are inconsistent dying declarations by the deceased, then Courts must look for corroborative evidence to find out which dying declaration is to be believed. This will depend upon the facts of the case and Courts are required to act cautiously in such cases. (Para 12-14)

Sports Authority Of India vs Dr. Kulbir Singh Rana 2025 INSC 319 – Compromise Orders

Practice and Procedure – Once the order has been passed on a kind of a compromise or concession given by a party, that party cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception. (Para 10)

Devinder Kumar Bansal vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 320 – Anticipatory Bail- Corruption Cases

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 438 – BNSS – Section 482 – Anticipatory Bail- The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice – Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. (Para 21) Corruption Cases – If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant – accused of indulging in corruption.

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988-Section 7,13- Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word “attempt” is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms – Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively. – Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the other hand, Section 13 of the Act, 1988 is with regard to criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. (Para 10-17)

Mortuza Hussain Choudhury vs The State Of Nagaland 2025 INSC 321

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Section 3(1) – Authorized officer must be ‘satisfied’ that the person concerned required to be detained so as to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary. (Para 17)

Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Oral communication of grounds does not amount to adequate communication, in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution – if the detenu is not conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he/she can understand and in a script which he/she can read, if he/she is a literate person. (Para 11,14) -Preventive detention is a draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried and convicted under a penal law can be detained and confined for a determinate period of time so as to curtail that person’s anticipated criminal activities- preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence, the prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure due compliance with constitutional and statutory norms and requirements. (Para 2)

Patel Babubhai Manohardas vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 322 – Abetment Of Suicide – Handwriting Expert Evidence -Poisoning

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. (Para 22)

Criminal Trial – Expert’s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence. It can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such opinion evidence, it is necessary to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. – having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of hand-writing, the approach of the court should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. In an appropriate case, corroboration may be sought. Where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. – when the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the said expert. (Para 42-44)

Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 323

Note: No legal aspect discussed in the judgment – Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeal filed by accused convicted in murder case.

Suresh @ Hanuman vs State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) 2025 INSC 324

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment – Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by accused convicted in murder case

Lavanya C vs Vittal Gurudas Pai 2025 INSC 325 – Order XXXIX Rule 2A – Violation Of Injunction – Lawyer Client Relationship

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXXIX Rule 1,2, 2A- Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased -The rigour of such disobedience may be toned down if the order is subsequently set aside- Referred to Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59. (Para 7.4)

Lawyer – Client Relationship -A lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter- The lawyer is to respect the decision-making right of the client- Any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client. (Para 10)

Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana Ltd.(TSSPDCL) vs. B Ramesh 2025 INSC 326

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment – SC allowed appeal against HC judgment that had directed appointment of a person as an Office Subordinate in the TSSPDCL Company.

Joyi Kitty Joseph vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 327 – COFEPOSA Detention

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974– While quashing a detention order, SC observed: The criminal prosecution launched and the preventive detention ordered are on the very same allegations of organised smuggling activities- When bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on conditions, the detaining authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities; which is the very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere with the detention order only on the ground of the detaining authority having not looked into the conditions imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the very same offence; the allegations in which also have led to the preventive detention, assailed herein, to enter a satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in further like activities of smuggling. (Para 21)

Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 328 – S. 142 NI Act – S. 406 CrPC – Transfer Petition

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 406 ; Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Section 138, 142- Section 142 of the N.I. Act in clear terms, provides the complainant with the right to lodge a complaint, before a court, within whose jurisdiction, the branch of the bank where the cheque is delivered for collection, is situated. Therefore, the argument that another court might also be empowered to take cognizance of the matter under Section 142, since the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction, cannot by itself be a ground for seeking transfer under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. (Para 55)

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Section 138, 142- The complainant can file a complaint before the courts within whose jurisdiction the collection branch of the bank falls (para 63) – The word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act has no significance. What is of significance is the expression ‘for collection through an account’- The delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction.(Para 62)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 406 – It is only the Supreme Court that has the power to transfer a case pending in a Court subordinate to one High Court to be tried by a Court subordinate to another High Court – A case is transferred by virtue of the powers under Section 406 if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. There, however, must be reliable material from which it can be inferred that there are impediments that are interfering or likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the cause of justice.(Para 31) – Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii)comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv)a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability in holding a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice. (Para 49)- Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. (Para 65)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Sections 461,462 – If an offender is tried by a Magistrate not empowered by law in that behalf, his proceedings shall be void under Section 461. Section 462 does not make the principle contained therein to have force notwithstanding anything contained in Section 461.(Para 38)

Cause of action– The whole bundle of material facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to succeed in the suit.” To ascertain whether the bundle of facts give rise to the cause of action and to determine whether one or more of those facts had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the entire plaint needs to be looked into and taken into consideration. (Para 56)

Periyammal (Dead) vs V. Rajamani 2025 INSC 329 – Execution Petitions Delay- Order XXI Rule 97 -101 CPC – S. 47 CPC

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Execution Petitions -Long and inordinate delay at the end of the Executing Courts across the country in deciding execution petitions – The mandatory direction requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing reiterated – Directions issued: High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 – The questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101.- The issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself- benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial causing failure of realisation of fruits of the decree. (Para 62- 63)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 97 – Section 47 is a general provision whereas Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 deal with a specific situation. Moreover, Section 47 deals with executions of all kinds of decrees whereas Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 deal only with execution of decree for possession -Even an application filed under Section 47 would be treated as an application under Order XXI Rule 97 and an adjudication is required to be conducted under Rule 98. Dispossession of the applicant from the property is not a condition for declining to entertain the application. (Para 52-54)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI Rule 97 -101- Rules 97 to 101 deal with situation when execution is obstructed or resisted by “any person” claiming right, title or interest in the property. The words “any person” include even a stranger to a decree resisting the decree of possession as not being bound by a decree or by claiming independent right, title or interest to the property. Rule 97 not only provides remedy to a decree holder in obtaining possession of an immovable property but also to a stranger who obstructs or resists delivery of possession of the property by claiming derivative title from the judgment debtor or independent right, title or interest in the decretal property. Whereas, Rule 99 gives right to a third party claiming right, title or interest in the property to seek restoration of the decretal property. Suffice it to say that the remedy under Rule 99 is available when a person claiming right to the decretal property is already dispossessed. (Para 49)

Jamin vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 330 – S. 319 CrPC – Revisional Jurisdiction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319, 397-401 –Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gives effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected. (Para 115)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 – Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial. This is different from holding that a person who has been summoned as per Section 319 CrPC has a right of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice before being added as an accused to be tried along with the other accused. However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. (Para 115)

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Rajesh Kumar @ Munnu 2025 INSC 331 – Rape Cases – Non-Allowance Of Medical Examination By Rape-Victim

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 376 – Non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them. (Para 10)

Vijay Bahadur vs Sunil Kumar – Election 2025 INSC 332 – Documents

Election – The candidates in the election wanting to keep an eye on voting during the day and inspect records of the same is something which cannot be denied to them. If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability. Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same. (Para 17)

Rabindranath Panigrahi vs Surendra Sahu 2025 INSC 333- S 100 CPC – Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 100 -A finding of fact could not be disturbed by the Court in the Second Appeal, as it was not open for the Court to examine the evidence assuming First Appeal jurisdiction, unless the findings returned were perverse. (Para 10) 

State Of Assam vs Arabinda Rabha 2025 INSC 334 – Public Employment

Public Employment – Empanelled/selected candidate can claim no right of appointment, if the State has cogent and germane grounds for not making the appointment. However, at the same time, it is also the law that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims- the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker. This acts as a check on the employer’s power deciding against not making any appointment from the select list despite availability of vacancy/vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s).

Public Employment – The factors of “when”, “which”, “what”, “who” and “how” that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. However, the right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service. Obviously, assessing the merit of the candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to which the appointment is to be made would depend directly on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating the selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides. (Para 35)

Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 335 – Ss. 42,42A POCSO Act

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 42,42A – The fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A are in completely different spheres. Section 42 specifically deals with the quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act and also under the provisions of the IPC or the Information Technology Act, 2000 then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree – Section 42A of POSCO Act, on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other. Hence, the provisions of Section 42A of POSCO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act. (Para 21-22)

Ayyavu vs Prabha 2025 INSC 336

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment – SC allowed an appeal against HC judgment in a second appeal.

Delhi Development Authority vs S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. 2025 INSC 337

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this judgment – SC upheld HC judgment.

Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 338 – S.227 CrPC – Discharge – S. 304 Part II IPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 227 – What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, court is only required to consider as to whether there are sufficient materials which can justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused. (Para 16)

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Satya Ram 2025 INSC 339

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the judgment – SC allowed appeal against HC judgment – Labour Law Matter

Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan 2025 INSC 340 -S.20 Prevention Of Corruption Act

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 20- When the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team, there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case. (Para 16) [Context: SC acquitted accused in corruption case]

State Of Rajasthan vs Indraj Singh 2025 INSC 341 – Bail – Effect On Society

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 439- Bail – Lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society. (Para 9)

Government Jobs – In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process – with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions. (Para 10)

Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 342 – PIL – Medical Colleges Admission

Summary: PIL challenging clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017 closed – SC observed: The concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, in our considered view, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract. Furthermore, such an issue cannot be decided without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such adjudication.

V. Ravikumar vs S. Kumar 2025 INSC 343 – Power Of Attorney Cancellation

Power of Attorney – The power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed. (Para 8)

Lok Mal @ Loku vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 344 – S.376 IPC – Rape – Absence Of Injuries On Victim

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 376 -Absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution – Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. (Para 11) The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. (Para 13) The question of conviction of the accused for rape of the prosecutrix is independent and distinct. It has absolutely no connection with the character of the mother of the prosecutrix and seems to be a dire attempt at using it as a license to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. (Para 16)

Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs Rathnamma 2025 INSC 345

Note: No legal aspects discussed in the order.

Vishnoo Mittal vs Shakti Trading Company 2025 INSC 346 – IBC – Moratorium – S. 138 NI Act

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – The cause of action arises only when the amount remains unpaid even after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the demand notice-

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 14 ; Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 -In this case, the accused contended that the corporate debtor is presently facing insolvency proceedings and a moratorium order was issued- HC refused to quashed complaint – Allowing appeal, SC observed: The case at hand is totally different from P.Mohan Raj as the cause of action in the present case arose after the commencement of the insolvency process- The bare reading of the above provision shows that the appellant did not have the capacity to fulfil the demand raised by the respondent by way of the notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 NI Act. When the notice was issued to the appellant, he was not in charge of the corporate debtor as he was suspended from his position as the director of the corporate debtor as soon as IRP was appointed on 25.07.2018. Therefore, the powers vested with the board of directors were to be exercised by the IRP in accordance with the provisions of IBC. All the bank accounts of the corporate debtor were operating under the instructions of the IRP, hence, it was not possible for the appellant to repay the amount in light of section 17 of the IBC. (Para 9- 11)- Distinguished P. Mohan Raj v. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258.

Auroville Foundation vs Navroz Kersasp Mody 2025 INSC 347 – Environmental Law – Sustainable Development

Environmental Law – Sustainable Development – “Sustainable Development” has been accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life, while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by Brundtland Report means “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs.” The “Sustainable Development” therefore has been held to be a balancing concept between Ecology and Development as a part of the customary international law- Though it is true that the “Precautionary Principle” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” are part of the environmental law of the country, it is equally true that while the right to clean environment is a guaranteed fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to development through industrialisation equally claims priority under fundamental rights particularly under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is therefore a need for “Sustainable Development” harmonising and striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment. (Para 15-17)

National Green Tribunal Act – Section 14 – The Tribunal before exercising the jurisdiction has to satisfy itself that a substantial question pertaining to the violation of or implementation of any specific statutory environmental obligations contained in any of the enactments specified in Schedule I, is involved. (para 7)Though strict law of evidence may not be applicable to the cases filed before the Tribunal, the Applicant has to raise the substantial question in his Application specifically alleging the violation of a particular enactment specified in Schedule I. (Para 9)

Auroville Foundation vs Natasha Storey 2025 INSC 348 – Doctrine Of Clean Hands

Legal Maxims and Doctrines – Doctrine of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts” is applicable with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum. The party invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and disclose all correct and material facts in his Writ Petition. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petition has been guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter- The rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. (Para 9-10)

Auroville Foundation Act – The Governing Board is vested with all the powers and is empowered to discharge all the functions as may be exercised or discharged by the Foundation, and that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Foundation vests in the Governing Board alone. (Para 16)

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 INSC 349 – PMLA – Threshold Value

PMLA Act – Money laundering is not a static event but an ongoing activity, as long as illicit gains are possessed, projected as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy. Thus, the argument that the offence is not continuing does not hold good. (Para 25) The determination of the amount involved in a money laundering offence is not to be viewed in isolation but in the context of the overall financial trail and associated transactions. The totality of the evidence must be assessed, which is a matter of trial. (Para 30) the determination of the threshold value must be based on the entirety of the transaction and not an isolated instance or a narrow interpretation of specific amounts at any given time. (Para 27)

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 350 – FIR – Preliminary Inquiry – Cognizable Offence

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 – Clarified Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1: The scope of a preliminary inquiry is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR -Lalita Kumari judgment does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR. Rather, it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence-When the allegations against the accused pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office, Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases- (para 12-13)

Judiciary – Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law. (Para 15)

Siddharth Dalmia vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 351 – PIL Against Exploitation By Private Hospitals

Constitution of India – Article 21 – The provision of medical facilities to one and all is an essential component of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – PIL seeking direction to restrain private hospitals from compelling the patients to purchase medicines/ devices/ implants/ consumables from the hospital pharmacies only, where they allegedly charge exorbitant rates, as compared to the notified market prices of those items – They further seek a direction that the Union of India or the State Governments should formulate a policy to prevent this form of exploitation – Disposing PIL, SC observed -Such issues primarily involve policy decisions, for which the policy-makers are the best equipped to take a holistic view and formulate the guidelines as may be required, to safeguard the patients or their attendants from exploitation while simultaneously, ensuring that there is no discouragement and unreasonable restriction on private entities from entering the health sector.It may not be advisable for this Court to issue mandatory directions which may hamper the growth of hospitals in the private sector; but parallelly, it is necessary to sensitize the State Governments re: the problem of unreasonable charges and exploitation of patients in private hospitals- Directions issued to all the State Governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decisions as they may deem fit.

Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited 2025 INSC 352- Arbitration Agreement – Lex Arbitri

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Matters such as filling vacancies on arbitral tribunals and the removal of an arbitrator through the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, in the absence of a clear mechanism within the arbitration agreement, should be normally governed by the law applicable to the arbitration agreement itself, rather than by the procedural rules that govern the arbitration process. It is, after all, the lex arbitri that governs the arbitration and its associated processes. (Para 11) The mere choice of ‘place’ is not sufficient, in the absence of other relevant factors, to override the presumption in favor of the lex contractus. (Para 31)

Interpretation of Contracts- To resolve conflicts between competing or inconsistent clauses, the court should read the contract as a whole, striving to give effect to all its provisions. One clause may influence the content of another, and a clause should not be rejected unless it is clearly inconsistent or repugnant to the rest of the agreement- Only when such a reconciliation is not possible will the court consider one clause to prevail over an incorporated standard clause should not be dismissed as redundant unless it is manifestly inconsistent with or repugnant to the rest of the agreement. (Para 26)

Zaid Sheikh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 353 – Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit

Legal Maxim – Actus curiae neminem gravabit– An act of the Court should, ordinarily, not prejudice anyone. This is a fundamental principle of justice. (Para 8)

Education – Fulfilling the basic eligibility for admission to a course is a sine qua non, which ought not to be overlooked or ignored. (Para 7)

Sajithabai vs Kerala Water Authority 2025 INSC 354 – Service Law – Interpretation Of Statutes

Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 – Rule 4(b) – Special Rules, 1960 deal with a separate service, its Rule 4(b) has no applicability to a stage prior to an officer becoming an Assistant Engineer i.e. to the draftsman/overseer who are holding both degree and diploma qualification and who exercise the option of sitting in 6% (six per cent) competitive exam for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. To put it differently, the said Rule 4(b) has no relevance as to how the person was appointed to the feeder post (i.e. the post of Assistant Engineer) in the service governed by the Special Rules, 1960. (Para 24) – once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer, i.e. the feeder post under a separate service governed by Special Rules, 1960, then that person irrespective of how he/she has been appointed to that post, has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota, provided he/she has obtained a degree or a diploma. (Para 25) –

Interpretation of Statutes & Contracts– More absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. (Para 28)

Gangubai Raghunath Ayare vs Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) 2025 INSC 355 – Order I Rule 9 – Necessary Party

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order I Rule 9 – Care must be taken to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the proceedings will have to fail – Quoted form of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472. (Para 24)

Madivalappa Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation 2025 INSC 356 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – The multiplier ‘18’ should be applied since age is assessed as 24 years by the MACT. (Para 10)

Shivaleela Vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance 2025 INSC 357 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Vehicles Act 1988– A beneficial and welfare legislation that seeks to provide compensation as per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is essentially forward-looking. Unlike tortious liability, which is chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a claimant to his original position, the compensation under the Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in peoples’ lives in the future. (Para 13)

Kiran Raju Penumacha vs Tejuswini Chowdhury 2025 INSC 358 – Child Custody

Child Custody – the welfare of the child is paramount in matters relating to custody. (Para 15)

Sita Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh 2025 INSC 359 – Dying Declaration – Apprehension Of Death

Indian Evidence Act – Section 32- Admissibility of a dying declaration not dependent upon the person’s having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act- Referred to State of Haryana v. Mange Ram (2003) 1 SCC 637. (Para 52)

State Of Rajasthan vs Chatra 2025 INSC 360 – Rape Cases – Silence Of Prosecutrix

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375 – If the prosecutrix is unable to testify, or for some justifiable reason remains unexamined, the possibility of conviction is automatically excluded – The testimony of the prosecutrix is present and forms an essential part of the conviction of an accused, but at the same time, there is no hard and fast rule that in the absence of such a statement a conviction cannot stand, particularly when other evidence, medical and circumstantial, is available pointing to such a conclusion – Further, the silence of a child cannot be equated with the silence of a fully realised adult prosecutrix, which again would have to be weighed in its own circumstances. (Para 17)

Cross Examination – The purpose of cross-examination is to discredit the witness/elicit facts from such person, which may favour the other party, etc. (Para 19)

Rape cases – Child witness – a. No hard and fast rule can be laid down qua testing the competency of a child witness to testify at trial. b. Whether or not a given child witness will testify is a matter of the Trial Judge being satisfied as to the ability and competence of said witness. To determine the same the Judge is to look to the manner of the witness, intelligence, or lack thereof, as may be apparent; an understanding of the distinction between truth and falsehood etc. c. The non-administration of oath to a child witness will not render their testimony doubtful or unusable. d. The trial Judge must be alive to the possibility of the child witness being swayed, influenced and tutored, for in their innocence, such matters are of ease for those who may wish to influence the outcome of the trial, in one direction or another. e. Seeking corroboration, therefore, of the testimony of a child witness, is well-placed practical wisdom. f. There is no bar to cross-examination of a child witness. If said witness has withstood the cross- examination, the prosecution would be entirely within their rights to seek conviction even solely relying thereon. (Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 374- As the First Appellate Court, the High Court is expected to independently assess the evidence before it before confirming or disturbing the findings of the Court below. (Para 6)

Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal 2025 INSC 361 – Motor Accident Compensation

Motor Accident Compensation – Concern expressed regarding mode of payment of compensation in motor accident cases – The process can be streamlined by directly transferring the amount in the bank accounts of the claimants, so that the Insurance Companies and the claimants are saved from hassles of the court processes- For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal.

Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Samiti, Aligarh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh – 2025 INSC 362

Legal Maxims and Doctrines – When a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. (Para 15)

Garden Reach Shipbuilders And Engineers Limited vs GRSE Limited Workmens Union 2025 INSC 363 – Roster Power- Chief Justice of High Court

Practice and Procedure – Judiciary – Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster, and such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court- Any order which a bench – comprising of two judges or a single judge – may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them/him by the Chief Justice of the High Court or in accordance with His Lordship’s directions, such an order is without jurisdiction -An adjudication, beyond allocation, is void and such adjudication has to be considered a nullity. (Para 9)

Supreme Court Bar Association vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 364 – AOR Practice – Guidelines

Practice and Procedure – (i) Where the Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the Advocate-on-Record, he shall certify that it was executed in his presence. (ii) Where the Advocate-on-Record merely accepts the Vakalatnama which is already duly executed in the presence of a Notary or an Advocate, he shall make an endorsement thereon that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. (iii) The Advocate on record shall furnish the details as required by the Appearance Slip prescribed in Form No. 30 through the link provided on the website as mentioned in the Notice dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Supreme Court; (iv) The respective Court Masters shall ensure to record appearances in the Record of Proceedings only of Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing of the matter, and one Advocate/AOR each for assistance in Court to such arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate, as the case may be, as required in the Note mentioned at the foot of the said Form No. 30; and (v) If there is any change in the authorisation of the AOR or of the Senior Advocate or Arguing Advocate by the concerned party, after the submission of the Appearance Slip prescribed in Form No. 30, it shall be duty of the concerned AOR to submit an Appearance Slip afresh to the concerned Court Master informing him about such change, and the concerned Court Master shall record appearances of such Advocates accordingly in the Record of Proceedings. (vi) A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court. (Para 24)

Vishwanath vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 365

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this judgment.

Sunita vs Vinod Singh 2025 INSC 366 – Motor Accident Compensation – Age From Post Mortem Report

Motor Accident Compensation – In the absence of material indicating to the contrary, there is no inhibition to accept the age of the deceased as per the Post-Mortem Report. (Para 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – A beneficial and welfare legislation and it is a duty to award ‘just compensation’. (Para 14)

Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board vs Bhagwan Devi (D) 2025 INSC 367 – S. 34 Arbitration Act – Land Acquisition – Private Agreement

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 34 – Award would be in conflict with the public policy of India if it is in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice- When the State uses its sovereign power of eminent domain and acquires land for a public purpose, such an exercise cannot be set at naught by the beneficiary of such acquisition, by entering into a private agreement shortly after the acquisition so as to reverse the usage of the power of eminent domain by the State- Such agreement is clearly in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law. (Para 15-16)

Raju Naidu vs Chenmouga Sundra 2025 INSC 368 – Execution -Limited Rights Of Transferee Pendent Lite

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI – Transfer of Property Act – Section 53A –Limited rights of the transferee pendent lite on the principle of lis pendens – Such limited rights cannot be stretched to obstruct and resist the full claim of the decree holders to execute the decree in their favour.

Doctrine of Merger – Quoted from Chandi Prasad vs Jagdish Prasad 2004(8) SCC 724: When an Appellate Court passes a decree, the decree of the trial court merges with the decree of the Appellate Court and even if and subject to any modification that may be made in the appellate decree, the decree of the Appellate Court supersedes the decree of the trial court. In other words, merger of a decree takes place irrespective of the fact as to whether the Appellate Court affirms, modifies or reverses the decree passed by the trial court. (Para 10)

Naganna (D) Vs Siddaramegowda (D) 2025 INSC 369 – Declaration Of Title Suit

Civil Suit – One who comes before the court with a declaration that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, he must plead the correct property number, extent and also boundaries before the court with cogent and acceptable evidence- SC upheld HC judgment which held that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to showcase that he was in possession of the property i.e. the revenue record extracts fall short to establish the case of the plaintiff. (Para 11-12)

 State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2025 INSC 370 – Pension – Service Related Claims

Service Law – Pension is not a charity, or a bounty, and an employee is entitled to receive his pension. As a matter of principle, belated service-related claims need to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. However, where the claim relates to a continuing wrong, which does not affect the rights of third parties, equities can be balanced by restricting the arrears for the entitlement which a claimant is held to be eligible for- Normally, the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition in the High Court for restricting the consequential relief has been resorted to regarding disbursal of arrears, which is justified. In the present case also, therefore, the benefit of arrears of pension can be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ Petition. (Para 19)

Citicorp Finance (India) Limited vs Snehasis Nanda 2025 INSC 371 – Consumer Protection Act

Consumer Protection Act 1986 – When there is no privity of contract between the concerned parties therein, no ‘deficiency’ would arise and the action (complaint) would not be maintainable before the concerned Consumer Forum. (Para 17)

Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 24A – While the NCDRC is competent to condone any period of delay in filing a complaint beyond two years from the date when the cause of action arises, the discretion is circumscribed by twin conditions: (i) that the complainant satisfy the NCDRC that he had sufficient cause for not filing his complaint within such period, and; (ii) that the NCDRC record the reasons for condoning such delay. (Para 22)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Consumer Protection Act – Even in a consumer dispute under the Act, or for that matter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arbitration, if provided for under the relevant agreement/document, can be opted for/resorted to, however, at the exclusive choice of the ‘consumer’ alone – Referred to Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751 and M Hemalatha Devi v B Udayasri, (2024) 4 SCC 255. (Para 24-25)

Chandra Shekhar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand 2025 INSC 372- Food Safety and Standard Rules

Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011- If a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master’s degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master’s or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (para 32)

Bank Of India vs Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy 2025 INSC 373 – Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Sympathy Considerations

Constitution of India – Article 226 – In exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high courts of the country do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic. This golden truth has to borne in mind by all courts exercising high prerogative writ jurisdiction. While mandamus will issue to reach injustice, wherever found, it is equally true that exercise of discretion should not unnecessarily be coloured by considerations of sympathy or grace or compassion or charity. These are beyond the scope of the high courts’ writ powers. In cases such as these, where acceptable justification for the failure to act with expedition is not proffered, the high courts should stay at a distance. (Para 18) – Quoted from Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana (1977) 1 SCC 486 : no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (Para 16)

Indian Council Of Social Science Research (ICSSR) vs Neetu Gaur 2025 INSC 374 – Art. 12 Constitution – Deep & Pervasive Control

Constitution of India – Article 12- A ‘deep and pervasive’ control would require much more than just financing an institution or a body. Even guiding, controlling or regulating affairs of an institution will not be called a ‘deep and pervasive’ control. The ‘deep and pervasive’ control requires administrative, financial and functional control of such a body to a much higher degree including interference into its day­ to­ day working, and mere regulatory control cannot mean ‘deep and pervasive’ control. (Para 17)

Constitution of India – Article 12- ICSSR is indeed an “authority”, within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It also controls CRRID to an extent inasmuch as CRRID depends on the funds released by ICSSR as grants. But this itself cannot be called a ‘deep and pervasive’ control- Merely because CRRID is under the control of an authority (as defined under Article 12) will not make CRRID an authority. (Para 17-18)

2025 INSC 137 Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab – S 375 – Marital Rape Exception

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 375 – Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape – Criminal proceedings against accused quashed.

State (CBI) vs Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz 2025 INSC 376 – S.15 TADA – Free Atmosphere

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 -Confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere. Recording of confessional statements in a heavily guarded BSF camp or in a JIC where the atmosphere for an accused would generally be daunting and overbearing cannot be said to be in a free atmosphere. (Para 26) Referred to Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569- The Legislature had reposed great faith in the fairness and uprightness of the higher police officials in the rank of SP and above while conferring the drastic power of recording confessional statements of the accused persons upon them making the same admissible in evidence subject to fulfillment of the procedural safeguards. But we are afraid, in so far the present case is concerned, the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye. The Special Court has stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority. It is indeed a sad reflection as to how investigation and trial unfolded in this case where truth and justice, both for the victims and the accused, remained elusive. It is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed. (Para 27)

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamlal 2025 INSC 377 – Priority – Huge Criminal Appeal Pendency

Practice and Procedure –Huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal – Considering the pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age of the accused and the long lapse of time from the commission of the offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to the appeals against conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority. (Para 15)

Sudam Prabhakar Achat vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 378 – Related Witness Evidence

Criminal Trial – Related Witness – Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection. (Para 9)

Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 379 – Art. 226 Constitution – Technicalities

Constitution of India – Article 226 – while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not expected to be hyper- technical. (Para 11) -Even in case of disputed questions of fact, the High Court would be justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226 – Even in cases where there are disputed questions of fact, where such disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226. (Para 12)

Litigants – State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants. The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service. (Para 13)

Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 381 – S 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 149 – Where the evidence on record establishes the fact that a large number of persons were present, it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged – Plurality test –The conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by a certain number of witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident – – Where a crowd of assailants, who are members of an unlawful assembly, proceeds to commit murder in pursuance of the common object of that assembly, any person who is a member of that unlawful assembly is equally liable even though no specific overt act of assault is attributed to him. Otherwise also, where the assailants are large in number it may not be possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of them. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assault the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them must take part in the actual assault. Therefore, in a situation like this, what is important for the Court is to determine whether the accused put on trial was a part of the unlawful assembly or just a bystander. Such determination is inferential, based on the proven facts of the case-Accused vicariously liable inter alia, (a) where he had proceeded to the scene of crime along with other members of the assembly carrying arms or instruments which could serve the object of the assembly; and (b) where he had participated in any manner in the events which serve the common object of the assembly. (Para 14)

Inder Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 382 – Condonation Of Delay

Limitation Act – Section 5 – All parties, whether or not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude- delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. (Para 13-14)

Yerikala Sunkalamma Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 383 – S.80 CPC Notice – Art.300A Constitution – Declaratory Title Suits Against Government

Code of Civil Procedure 1908- Section 80 –The primary objective behind Section 80 of the CPC is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable (Para 97)- A statutory notice holds significance beyond mere formality. Its purpose is to provide the Government or a public officer with an opportunity to reconsider the matter in light of established legal principles and make a decision in accordance with the law – A notice issued under Section 80 must include: i. The name, description, and place of residence of the person providing the notice. ii. A statement outlining the cause of action. iii. The relief sought by the plaintiff. – When determining whether the essential requirements of the Section have been met, the court should consider the following questions: (i) Has the notice provided adequate information to allow the authorities to identify the person issuing the notice? (ii) Have the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff been sufficiently detailed? (iii) Has the written notice been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority as specified in the section? (iv) Has the suit been initiated after the expiration of two months following the delivery or submission of the notice, and does the plaint include a statement confirming that such notice has been provided as required? (Para 103-105)

Declaratory title suits against the Government- Principles that govern the adjudication: i. Suits for declaration of title against the government differ from suits against private parties on two counts: a. First, there is a presumption in favour of the Government in such suits, as all lands which are unoccupied or not vested in any individual or local authority, are presumed to belong exclusively to the Government. b. Secondly, there is an additional burden of proof on the party seeking declaration of title against the Government. The plaintiff has to establish its possession over the land in question for a period of thirty years as opposed to twelve years in the case of adverse possession against a private party. ii. A decree declaring title against the Government must not be passed casually. Before granting any such decree, the trial court must ensure that the plaintiff has furnished adequate documentary evidence, either through title deeds tracing ownership for over thirty years or by establishing adverse possession for a period of thirty years. iii. The trial court must verify whether the name of the plaintiff has been recorded as the owner, holder, or occupant in the relevant revenue or municipal records for more than thirty years. iv. Finally, the trial court must carefully scrutinize the nature of the possession as may be asserted, determining whether the same is authorized or unauthorized, permissive or casual, furtive or clandestine, as well as open, continuous, and hostile, or implied by title, to ensure that public property is not inadvertently converted into private ownership by unscrupulous elements. (Para 88) Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness. The Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation. They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation. In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. (Para 113)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 110 ; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023- Section 113 – Possession is prima facie proof of ownership. A person in possession is entitled to remain in possession until another person can disclose a better title under Section 113 of the BSA. Therefore, once the plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of the suit property, the burden of proving that the plaintiff is not the owner is on the defendant who affirms that the plaintiff is not the owner. The Section does not make a distinction between the Government and a private citizen. Section 113 is, therefore, equally applicable where a Government claims to be the owner or challenges the ownership of the plaintiff who is in possession of the property. It is not disputed that before the possession of the Subject Land was taken over, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property for more than twenty years. The onus, therefore, under section 113 of the BSA was on the State to prove that the Government had a subsisting title to the Subject Land. (Para 72)

Constitution of India – Article 300A – Under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property of any kind without specific legal authority which can be established in Court of law, however laudable the motive behind such deprivation may be -In case of dispossession of property except under the authority of law, the owner may obtain restoration of possession by a proceeding for mandamus against the governmental authorities- The phrase “by authority of law” means by or under a law made by the competent Legislature

Amit Kumar vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 384 – Student Suicide – Ss. 154 & 174 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 – In the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes their unequivocal duty to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities. Such action is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative to ensure transparency, accountability, and the pursuit of justice. Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon the police authorities to act with diligence and responsibility by registering the FIR without refusal or delay. This ensures that due process of law is upheld, and a thorough investigation can be conducted to uncover the truth and address any underlying causes. (Para 47)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 and 174 – The investigations conducted under Sections 154 and 174 of the CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and purpose- The former begins with information about the commission of a cognizable offence referred to in Section 154(1), culminating in registration of F.I.R. and ending with filing of a chargesheet/challan before the competent court under Section 173 or a final report as the case may be- In contrast, an investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC focuses on ascertaining the apparent cause of death in cases of unnatural or suspicious deaths- The investigation after registration of F.I.R. under Section 154 of the CrPC is an investigation into an offence. In contrast, the investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC is an investigation or an “inquiry” into the apparent cause of death- Sections 174 to 176 of the CrPC only contemplate inquiry into the cause of death. Although the phrase ‘investigation’ is used in Section 174 of the CrPC, yet it is only an investigation in the nature of an inquiry. Sometimes, during the inquest, the police record the presence of witnesses who are also witnesses in the case. These statements are not meant as substitutes for statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. The inquest requirement under Section 174 does use the word investigation but if one considers the entire phraseology of Section 174 of the CrPC, one comes to the conclusion that the word investigation in Section 174 is not an investigation to find out who are the offenders. It is only to enable the police to come up with the “apparent cause of death”. This phrase in Section 174 should give us the clue as to the correct understanding of the role of the police in inquest panchnama. (Para 21-28)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 154 – i. Registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the F.I.R. must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering the offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register an F.I.R. if information received by them discloses a cognizable offence. v. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a. Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes b. Commercial offences c. Medical negligence cases d. Corruption cases e. Cases where there is an abnormal delay in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over three months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. viii. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of an F.I.R. or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above. (Para 46)

Student Suicides – Supreme Court constitutes National Task Force To Address The Mental Health Concerns Of Students And Prevent The Commission Of Suicides In Higher Educational Institutions – The remit of this Task Force is to prepare a comprehensive report that includes: i. Identification of the predominant causes which lead to commission of suicides by students: An examination of the various causes which lead to student suicides in Higher Educational Institutions, including but not limited to ragging, caste-based discrimination, gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, academic pressure, financial burden, mental health related stigma, discrimination based on ethnicity, tribal identity, disability, sexual orientation, political views, religious belief or any other grounds. ii. Analysis of Existing Regulations: A thorough assessment of the effectiveness of current laws, policies, and institutional frameworks applicable to Higher Educational Institutions concerning ragging, caste-based and gender-based discrimination, sexual harassment, mental health support, support for students facing academic challenges, financial support to students in need of funds, etc. This analysis will evaluate whether these frameworks adequately address the challenges faced by students. iii. Recommendations for Strengthening Protections: Proposing necessary reforms to the existing legal and institutional frameworks to ensure stronger enforcement, accountability, and preventive measures. The Task Force shall also put forth recommendations to address existing gaps, create a more inclusive and supportive academic environment, and ensure equal opportunities for members of marginalized communities. (Para 69-74)

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Ritu Garg 2025 INSC 385- CBI Investigation

CBI Investigation – SC sets aside Allahabad HC direction to CBI to register a case based on the statement of one Dr. Umakant under Section 161 CrPC and observed : There can be no such direction issued in a bail application.

Jothiragawan vs State 2025 INSC 386 – Rape On Promise To Marry – Quashing

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 376 – Rape case quashed – SC observed: There is no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for sexual intercourse; as forthcoming from the statements made by the victim. The promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent.

Firoz Khan Akbarkhan vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 387 – Delay In Recording Witness Statement

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 161,164 -Stricto sensu, delay in recording witness statements, moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused. Of course, no hard-and- fast principle in this regard ought to be or can be laid down, as delay, if any, in recording statements will have to be examined by the Court concerned in conjunction with the peculiar facts of the case before it. (Para 21)

N.P. Saseendran vs N.P. Ponnamma 2025 INSC 388 – Gift, Settlement & Will

Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Section 122 -128- Gift – Delivery of possession is only one of the methods to prove acceptance and not the sole method. The receipt of the original document by the plaintiff and registration of the same, would amount to acceptance of the gift and the transaction satisfies the requirement of Section 122. (Para 18) – For a gift of an immovable property to be valid, it has to be registered, universal cancellation of the gift is impermissible and delivery of possession is not a condition sine qua non to validate the gift. (Para 11) Once the document is categorized as a gift, in the absence of any clause or reservation to cancel, the executant has no right to cancel the same. The reasons for cancellation or revocation of gift have to be proved in a court of law. (Para 18)

Settlement – A disposition of one’s property to another directly or to vest in any such person after successive devolution of rights on other(s). Further, the circumstances and reasons that led to the execution of such a settlement deed are described as its consideration, which need not necessarily be of any monetary value. More often than not, it consists of love, care, affection, duty, moral obligation, or satisfaction, as such deed are typically executed in favour of a family member. Also, a settlor is entitled to reserve a life interest either upon himself or upon others and impose any condition. The person in whose favour, a life interest is created, is permitted to use and enjoy the income arising out of such property during his life time, but has no right of alienation as the property had already vested in the settlee. The breach of any condition in the settlement, would then render the settlement void. However, there are restrictions under the Transfer of Property Act,1882 on the conditions that can be imposed. Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that when by virtue of a transfer, absolute right and interest has been vested in a party, any condition restricting or directing that the property must be enjoyed in a particular manner would be void as it is repugnant to the original grant. Similarly, any condition restraining or limiting the transferee from enjoying the property is also void to that extent. Though under both the situations, the conditions are void, the interest vested already can be enjoyed absolutely as per the will of the transferee. (Para 11.1)

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 2(h) – Will is defined under Section 2(h) as a legal declaration of the intention of the testator to be given effect after his death. (Para 11.2)

Gift and settlement -Gift is a voluntary disposition, it is essentially not an agreement and hence, the element of consideration is taken away from it. Settlement on the other hand is always coupled with consideration as it is mostly executed in favour of a family member. The gift or settlement of an immovable property has to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. The conditions regarding acceptance, reservation of life interest and restriction on revocation are applicable to both “gift and settlement”. The vesting of the right also takes place in praesenti in both the cases. Therefore, there is an element of gift in every settlement. (Para 11.3)

Will and Gift – A will is the declaration of the intention of the testator to give away his property. Such will comes into force after the death of the testator. The most important requirement for a valid will is that it must again be a voluntary disposition in sound mind, which must be explicit from the instrument itself -Every will also has an element of gift, with the difference being the disposition deferred until the death of the testator. Insofar as the revocation is concerned, the testator is at liberty to revoke or alter the will any number of times until his demise, but it is essential that he remains of sound mind while doing so. (Para 11.4)

Gift, Settlement and Will – In case of a gift, it is a gratuitous grant by the owner to another person; in case of a settlement, the consideration is the mutual love, care, affection and satisfaction, independent and resulting out of the preceding factors; in case of a will, it is declaration of the intention of the testator in disposition of his property in a particular manner. (Para 14.1)

Secretary To Government Department Of Health & Family Welfare VS KC Devaki 2025 INSC 389 – Service Law – Transfer

Service Law – Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 ; Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 – Rule 6 -Transfers characterised as in public interest are founded, sourced, and rooted in administrative exigencies and nothing else. Effecting or transferring employees at their behest is equally important but exercise of that power and discretion is to subserve a different cause or a value, which is distinct from transfer in public interest- If a government employee holding a particular post is transferred on public interest, he carries with him his existing status including seniority to the transferred post. However, if an officer is transferred at his own request, such a transferred employee will have to be accommodated in the transferred post, subject to the claims and status of the other employees at the transferred place, as their interests cannot be varied without there being any public interest in the transfer. Subject to specific provision of the Rules governing the services, such transferees are generally placed at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. The rationale in assignment of such seniority is to avoid heartburn of existing employees in the transferred cadre.

Deepak Kumar Tala vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 390 – SC-ST Act – Anticipatory Bail

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) – When there is no allegation that such statement was made in the presence of members of the general public, Sections 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(s) of the SC/ST not attracted – Anticipatory bail granted. (Para 4-7)

Akshay Gupta vs ICICI Bank Limited 2025 INSC 391

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this judgment – SC closed appeal recording settlement.

Raju @ Nirpendra Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 392 – Gang Rape Conviction Upheld

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 376 – Once the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident is established to be that of minority, the question of consent per se becomes irrelevant and the act shall qualify as statutory rape nevertheless- Subjection to sexual intercourse under fear of accused persons can in no way be understood to mean as consent on part of the prosecutrix – Normal rule of delay does not apply to rape cases. [Context: SC upheld gang rape conviction and observed: Even if the argument of consent is to be considered, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused- appellants were men who had held the prosecutrix, who was of a tender age, captive for a prolonged period of time by threatening her life. It would be illogical to rule out the role played by constant fear that the prosecutrix was operating under as she was being subjected to rape by the accused persons over the period of two months.- Such an expression as “being accustomed to sexual intercourse” is nothing but an archaic notion of sexual purity which intends to morally shame the victim and downplay the role of consent, or the lack thereof, in an offence of rape.]

Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (D) Vs Officer On Special Duty (Land Acquisition) 2025 INSC 393 – Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition – The land acquired is never used in the form it exists. It has to be first developed and made suitable either for habitation or for industrial purposes. In this connection, obviously roads have to be carved out, some open area has to be left for green belts, water, sewerage and electricity lines have to be laid down and the plots have to be carved out into some regular sizes and shapes. In this way, the transferable/saleable area hardly remains to be 50% of the land acquired. In such a situation, the courts have repeatedly held that 30% to 50% deduction be made from the rate for the purposes of such development (Para 11) Large areas do not attract the same price as is offered for the small plots of lands – some amount of deduction is also normally permissible on account of largeness in area. Thus, deduction of at least 10% has to be applied to determine the rate of compensation. (Para 12) The determination of the prevalent market value of the acquired land is not an algebraic formula and that cannot be determined in a precise or an accurate manner. Some amount of guess work is always permissible. Therefore, a judge has to sit in an arm chair and without much taxing his mind has to determine the market value in a prudent manner. (Para 13)

Srikrishna Kanta Singh vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 2025 INSC 394- Motor Accident Compensation – Contributory Negligence

Motor Accident Compensation – When a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the accident- Referred to Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008) 12 SCC 436 [ Context: In this case, the court held: The mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver.

Motor Accident Compensation – In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it (Para 11)- Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing. (Para 12) There cannot be separate compensation awarded for permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life. (Para 16)

J. Ganapatha Vs N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust 2025 INSC 395 – Moulding Of Relief

Moulding Of Relief – The concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding based on the circumstances of the case and the facts established after a full-fledged trial. The principle enables the court to grant appropriate remedies even if the relief requested in the pleading is not exact or could not be considered by the court or changed circumstances have rendered the relief obsolete. The court aims that justice is served while taking into account the evolving nature of a case. The above road map is pursued by a court based on the notion of flexibility in relief, equitable jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion. When moulding the relief, the court considers the issues and circumstances established during the full-fledged trial, looks at shortening the litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to the issue at hand. The converse of the above is that the moulded relief should not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice. The relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course- the court of first instance, while exercising the discretion to mould the relief, juxtaposes the consideration with the established conditions of the original relief becoming inappropriate or shortening the litigation and enabling rendering complete justice between the parties. The scrutiny on the moulding of relief by the appellate court tests the exercise of discretion by the trial court, but not in all cases, sit in the very armchair of the court which moulded the relief and re-examine every detail unless prejudice and grave injustice are pointed out against the moulding of relief. In a further appeal on the moulding of relief, the examination by the second appellate court ought to be minimal and not unsettle the settled. (Para 20-25)

Ravinder Kumar @ Raju vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 396 – Road Rage

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 299-304 -While partly allowing criminal appeal in a road rage case, SC observed: Since the assailants, including the deceased, were not armed and in the midst of a wordy altercation, the accused took out an iron rod and hit one of the assailants on the head; a vital part of the body. Hence, culpability under Section 299 of the I.P.C. though attracted, it does not result in a finding under Section 300 since it falls under Exception 1. The one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death, that too after five days, which overt act was without any pre-meditation and was occasioned in an altercation where the group comprising the deceased were the aggressors and the offender- appellant herein could be said to have acted under sudden provocation, thus being deprived of the power of self-control. Necessarily, the offence has to be found to be one under Section 304 of the I.P.C. being culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, under Part I of Section 304 of the I.P.C., since the bodily injury deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death and in such circumstance, the conviction has to be modified to be under Section 304 Part I.

State vs G. Easwaran 2025 INSC 397 – Ss. 397, 482 CrPC – Quashing – Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Sanction – Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial (Para 12)- the validity of the sanction can always be examined during the course of the trial and the problems due to the typographical error as alleged by the State could have been explained by producing the file at the time of trial – A mere delay in the grant of sanction for prosecuting a public authority is not a ground to quash a criminal case.(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – The limited scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C is of determining “whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” based on the material, and not “whether that would warrant a conviction” (para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 397, 482 – While the bar under section 397(3) of the CrPC does not curtail the remedy under Section 482, it is trite that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly. (Para 7)

Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing And Area Development Board vs Manohar Burde 2025 INSC 398 – Consumer Case

Note– No legal aspects discussed in the order.

Rekha Sharad Ushir vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. 2025 INSC 399 – S. 138 NI Act – S. 200 CrPC – Suppression Of Material Facts

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 200 – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 –While filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, if the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint (Para 21)- [Context: Notice issued to accused – Accused replied to notice calling upon the complainant to provide documents relied upon in the notice and that she would reply to the demand notice after receiving the documents- SC Held: Thus, this was a case where very material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. (Para 13-20)]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Firstly, the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. Secondly, if a cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, the payee or the holder in due course must make a demand for payment of the amount of money covered by the cheque by issuing a notice in writing within 30 days of receipt of information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The third condition is that the drawer of the cheque must fail to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. (Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 200 – Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law- Recording the complainant’s statement on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. The object of recording the complainant’s statement and witnesses, if any, is to ascertain the truth. The learned Magistrate is duty-bound to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth. The examination is necessary to enable the Court to satisfy itself whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. (Para 10)

Litigation – A litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court. (Para 10)

Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 400 – Service Law – Retirement

Service Law – While municipal bodies hold the power to reorganize or rationalize services, such steps must be undertaken by following the prescribed statutory procedure, after due notice, and with proper safeguards for employees’ rights- Abruptly altering the retirement age, merely by reference to a generic classification under recruitment rules, disregards the legitimate expectations of employees who have structured their personal and professional lives around the established service regulations. Such actions strain not only the legal framework but also notions of fairness, particularly when no express legislative or regulatory change was initiated to revise the existing retirement scheme. (Para 17)

Service Law – A provision specifically dealing with retirement, especially one in force for a considerable length of time, cannot be undermined by a general classification clause in subordinate recruitment rules, in the absence of any clear legislative direction. (Para 14)

JSW Steel Limited vs Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal 2025 INSC 401 – IBC – Resolution Plan – Contempt

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Section 31 – All such claims which are not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the Resolution Plan- 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the Code has come into effect- All the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, or any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued- Referred to Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Para 17) -Even if any stakeholder is not a party to the proceedings before the NCLT and if such stakeholder does not raise his claim before the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional, the Resolution Plan as approved by the NCLT would still be binding on him. (Para 36)

R. Shashirekha vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 402 – S. 306 IPC – Abetment Of Suicide – S. 482 CrPC – Quashing

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 306 – there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim. The close proximity should be such as to create a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide – Quoted from Prakash v. State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 1020. (Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 ; Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 420 -If the High Court was of the view that even investigation papers as collected by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, then the least that was expected of the High Court was to give reasons as to why the material collected by the investigating agency which has been placed before the the High Court was not sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. (Para 18)

Aslam Alias Imran vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 403 – Concurrent Murder Conviction Set Aside – Enmity – False Implication

Criminal Trial – Enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. (Para 22)

Samtola Devi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 404 – Senior Citizens Act – Eviction Orders

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23 – The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account of the observations in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (2021) 15 SCC 730 that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens -In a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case – Referred to Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025) 2 SCC 787. (Para 31-32)

Family – In India we believe in “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” i.e. the earth, as a whole, is one family. However, today we are not even able to retain the unity in the immediate family, what to say of building one family for the world. The very concept of ‘family’ is being eroded and we are on the brink of one person one family. (Para 2)

Ramesh Kumaran vs State 2025 INSC 405 – Contempt Of Court – Suicide Threat

Contempt of Court –Lawyer threatened that if Court quashes the FIR registered against the respondent, he would commit suicide- SC observed: This conduct amounts to interference with the administration of justice. It is contemptuous and unbecoming of a member of the Bar. (Para 11)

Practice and Procedure -There are cases and cases which come before the courts where we find that the litigants are not in a position to understand what is in their best interest. Even if the litigants do not understand what is in their best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice. (Para 15)

Arun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 406 – Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus

Criminal Trial – As the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not part of Indian law and jurisprudence and is, at best, a rule of caution, the entire evidence of these witnesses need not be discarded because some of their statements are proved to be factually incorrect. However, their depositions would have to be viewed with care and caution before they are accepted and acted upon. (para 16)

State Of Haryana vs Aalamgir 2025 INSC 407 – Land Acquisition

Note: No legal aspects discussed in this order – High Court followed the earlier judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and granted relief to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers – Allowing appeal, SC observed: We find it just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters to the High Court for reconsideration of the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents- land owners/subsequent purchasers and to dispose of those Writ Petitions on the basis of the recent judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority by applying the ratio and the observations of the said judgment to the facts of each case as they emanate in each of the cases.

Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation vs Vincent Daniel 2025 INSC 408 – Land Acquisition- RFCTLARR Act

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -Section 26(1) – Section 26(1) (b) – Collector to consider the average sale price for similar types of land situated in the nearest village or the nearest vicinity. This test of average sale price is similar to the exemplar test which is adopted and applied in cases of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but with modifications in terms of Explanations 1 to 4. Computation under Clause (b) is in relative terms. Therefore, while drawing a comparison with the average price of the other lands under Clause (b), the Collector must consider all such factors that have been held to be relevant for accurate valuation by this Court. These include the theory of deduction, the principle of belting, and accounting for other advantages or disadvantages of the acquired land, in comparison to the lands existing in the same vicinity (Para 19)- While the statutory language makes the procedure under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) mandatory, the value as computed according to the Explanations can be increased, decreased or even discarded. (Para 22) Explanation 4 uses the word “and” in conjoining the values referred to in the two parts of the Explanation. This is done to expand the scope of application of the Collector’s discretion to the entire provision, as is also evident from the phrase “while determining the market value under this section”. The discretion should not be interpreted as restricting the discretion to only the average sale price under Explanations 1 and 2. The two parts must be given a disjunctive reading, attracting the application of Explanation 4 when either of the values does not reflect the actual market value. Thus, though the word “and” is used to connect the two parts, it should be read as “or” to effectuate the legislative intent. (Para 25)

Theory of deduction – The theory of deduction, though not statutorily prescribed, has been applied by courts to compute the compensation payable under the Acquisition Act, 1894 primarily for two reasons. First, consideration of the potential value of the land can result in arriving at an enhanced or increased value, especially for undeveloped lands. Secondly, in acquisitions of large underdeveloped lands, a significant portion of the land would have to be utilised for making minimum amenities like roads, drains, sewers, water and electrical lines available. Thus, making the land usable would involve a substantial expense for the buyer in the form of development charges. (Para 6)

Interpretation of Statutes – Explanations can form part of the main provision and, when so, can be as central as the provision itself- an explanation appended to a Section or Clause gets incorporated into it, becomes an integral part of it, and has no independent existence apart from it. There is, in the eye of law, only one enactment, of which both the Section and the Explanation are two inseparable parts. They move in a body if they move at all. (Para 22)

Circle Rates – Fixing fair and accurate circle rates has a direct impact on each citizen. An inflated rate results in an unfair financial burden on purchasers. Conversely, an undervalued rate leads to inadequate stamp duty collection, adversely affecting the State’s revenue. Circle rates which reflect the market price ensure proper revenue collection for the State by preventing under-valuation of properties. (Para 35)

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Satendra 2025 INSC 409 – Murder Case – Acquittal Reversed

Note: No legal aspects discussed in judgment – SC reversed acquittal of accused in murder case.

Imran Pratapgadhi vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 410 – Ss. 173 BNSS – S.196 BNS – Article 19 Constitution – Freedom of Speech – Preliminary inquiry

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 173(3) ; Constitution of India – Article 19(2) – When an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if sub- Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected. Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in sub- Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 173(3) –Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC- In the category of cases covered by sub-Section (3), a police officer is empowered to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding in the matter even if the information received discloses commission of any cognizable offence- After holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173. (Para 42- i-ii)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 – Section 196 – Mens rea will have to be read into Section 196 (Para 34) – When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position. (Para 42-vi) In case of the offence punishable under Section 196 of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, lead to the consequences provided in the Section, the police officer to whom information is furnished will have to read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out. Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173. (Para 42-iii)

Constitution of India – Article 12 – The police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution. They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens. (Para 42-iv)

Constitution of India – Preamble – The philosophy of the Constitution and its ideals can be found in the preamble itself. The preamble lays down that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. Therefore, liberty of thought and expression is one of the ideals of our Constitution. (Para 42-iv)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 528 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS. When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence. There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage. (Para 42-vii)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Section 173 – The allegations made in the information furnished to an officer-in-charge of a police station must be examined by the officer only with a view to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is made out. Taking the information as correct, the officer has to determine whether it makes out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegation makes out a case of a cognizable offence, unless the offence falls in sub-Section (3) of Section 173, it is mandatory to register FIR. (Para 25)

Quotable Quotes- Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view. Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. Literature including poetry, dramas, films, stage shows including stand-up comedy, satire and art, make the lives of human beings more meaningful. The Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Sometimes, we, the Judges, may not like spoken or written words. But, still, it is our duty to uphold the fundamental right under Article 19 (1)(a). We Judges are under an obligation to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals. If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights. There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. (Para 42-viii) 75 years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities. Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society. (Para 42-ix)

Gastrade International vs Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla 2025 INSC 411 – S. 45 Evidence Act – Customs Act- Most Akin Test

Customs Act, 1962 – Most Akin Test – If the attributes of the imported goods show that the goods are “most akin” to the specified goods amongst an array of other specified goods, these imported goods have to be classified as the specified goods with which these goods bear the most resemblance or most akinness. Thus, in our view, application of the principle of preponderance of probability does not provide an accurate test. The more accurate and precise test will be whether the goods in question are “most akin” or most similar to the specified goods- (Para 81-83) Direction: Ensure that proper facilities are made available in the appropriate laboratories for undertaking tests for all these parameters or at least for those parameters which the Authorities consider are of essential character to satisfy the “most akin” test without which the article in issue cannot be properly classified. (Para 88) Expression “preponderance of probability” in contradistinction to “proof beyond reasonable doubt”- there may be varying range in the degree of probabilities. Certainly, where the proceedings involve requirement of fulfilment of technical/scientific parameters with confiscatory and penal consequences, the degree of probability would be of a higher order and not mere probability. (Para 77-78)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 45 – The opinion of the experts, however weighty they may be, are not binding on the court and is only relevant for the court to consider it to come to a final decision on any fact in issue. However, since courts are not experts in the discipline of science, they ordinarily accept the scientific report and act upon it. But where the expert opinion suffers from certain shortcomings or ambiguities, lack of clarity, or inadequacy, it would be subject to judicial scrutiny and it would not be safe to rely wholly on the same under such circumstances. (Para 56-60)

State Of Jharkhand vs Rukma Kesh Mishra 2025 INSC 412 – Art.311,226 Constitution – Disciplinary Proceedings – Precedents – Stare Decisis

Constitution of India – Article 311(1) – If one looks at Article 311(1), the sole safeguard that it provides to any member, inter alia, of a civil service of a State or the holder of a civil post under the State is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed (emphasis supplied). Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority. (Para 33) Unless the relevant discipline and appeal rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that either the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it. (Para 26)

Constitution of India- Article 226 – In some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal (emphasis supplied). However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. (Para 11)

Precedents – Each decision is an authority for what it decides and not what could logically be deduced therefrom. Mechanical reliance on precedents, as if they are statutes, has been deprecated. Whenever a precedent is cited laying down a principle of law having application to the facts of the case in hand and having binding effect, it is customary and expected of courts to be bound by the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. However, the courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by the parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike. It is the duty of the court, if it considers the precedent not to be applicable, to refer to factual dissimilarities that are found and thereafter to distinguish the precedent cited before it by assigning brief but cogent reasons. (Para 35) Quoted from Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Pawan Kumar Dubey: “… It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts”. (Para 35)

Legal Maxims – Stare decisis et non queta movere – Stand by what has been decided and do not disturb what has been settled. (Para 26)

Gajendra Singh vs Reena Balmiki 2025 INSC 413 – Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage

Constitution of India – Article 142 – While dissolving a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage,SC observed : It is unfortunate that the parties have already spent a large number of years of their adult lives fighting marital battles in the courtrooms- The marital discord has reached to a point of no remedy and there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Therefore, no purpose shall be served by insisting for the parties to continue a marital relation which is already dead. (Para 15)

Surepally Srinivas vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 414 – S. 52A NDPS Act – Non Compliance

NDPS Act – Section 52A – What is to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused – Referred to Bharat Ambale v. State of Chattisgarh – To avoid suspicious circumstances and to ensure fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order which provides suitable guidance for the officers investigating crimes under the NDPS Act. Should there be any departure, the same must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds. [Context: In this case , the Investigating Officer kept the seized contraband in a separate room in his office for fifteen days – SC observed: This could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused.]

Ranjit Sarkar vs Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj 2025 INSC 415 – S. 256 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 256 – What assumes importance for invoking Section 256, Cr. PC is the purpose for which the case is fixed- If the date is not appointed for appearance of the accused but for some other purpose, acquittal of the accused does not necessarily follow as the logical result of absence of the complainant. Also, the words “on any day subsequent thereto” must be understood in reference to the words preceding, namely, “the day appointed for the appearance of the accused”. Say, for instance, if a date is fixed by the magistrate for bringing an order from a superior court or for showing cause why an order of dismissal should not be passed for continuous absence of the complainant or for producing any material, which is not intrinsically connected with any step towards progress of the lis, and the complainant is found to be absent, a dismissal of the complaint can be ordered but the provision for acquitting the accused may not be attracted unless it happens to be the date appointed for appearance of the accused and they do appear personally or through an advocate; also, without the magistrate recording a clear acquittal along with the order of dismissal of the complaint, acquittal need not be read into every such order of dismissal of a complaint owing to absence of the complainant. (Para 19)