Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Monthly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-up: March 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

14 April 2025 9:35 AM IST

Reports/Judgments

'None Should Be Excluded From Judicial Service Only Because Of Disability': Supreme Court Strikes Down MP Rule Barring Visually Impaired Candidates

Case Details: In Re Recruitment of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services v. Registrar General High Court of Madhya Pradesh, SMW(C) No. 2/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 274

The Supreme Court held that no person can be denied consideration for recruitment in the judicial service solely on account of their physical disabilities.

The Court held that persons with disabilities must not face any discrimination in their pursuit of judicial service recruitments and that the State must provide them affirmative action to ensure an inclusive framework. "Any indirect discrimination that results in the exclusion of Person with Disabilitiess, whether through cutoff or procedural barriers must be interfered with in order to uphold substantive equality," the Court pronounced.

"No candidate can be denied consideration solely on account of their disability," the Court stated. Accommodation must be provided to them while assessing their eligibility in terms of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Holding so, the Supreme Court struck down a rule of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Rules to the extent it barred visually impaired and low vision candidates from judicial service.

The Court emphatically held that "visually impaired and low vision candidates are eligible to participate in the selection for posts under the judicial service.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the verdict in a suo motu case regarding Rule 6A of the Madhya Pradesh Services Examination (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules 1994.

'Breastfeeding In Public & Work Places Shouldn't Be Stigmatised': Supreme Court Issues Directions Regarding Nursing & Child Care Rooms

Case Details: Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No.950/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 275

While asking the States/Union Territories to act upon an advisory issued by the Union Government regarding the creation of feeding and child care rooms in public buildings, the Supreme Court observed that the practice of breastfeeding in public places and workplaces should not be stigmatised.

"It would not be wrong at this instance to remind the citizens of this nation of their duty to “renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women”, as enshrined in Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India. Over and above the duty of the State to facilitate the exercise of the right of nursing mothers to breast-feed their children, the citizens must ensure that the practice of breastfeeding in public places and at workplaces is not stigmatized."

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and P.B. Varale pronounced the judgment in a petition seeking directions to construct feeding and child care rooms and creche at public spaces and buildings.

Washing & Dry Cleaning Of Clothes 'Manufacturing Process' Under Factories Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 276

The Supreme Court ruled that activities such as washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning fall within the definition of "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act, 1948, even if they do not result in the creation of a new tangible product.

Holding so, the Court added that the laundry business constitutes a "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Act”) if they employ 10 or more workers and laundry work is carried out with the aid of power-operated machines used for cleaning and washing clothes.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the appeal filed by the State of Goa against the High Court's decision to quash the JMFC's order, which issued process against the respondent for violations of the Factories Act, 1948.

Court Shouldn't Discard Expert's Opinion Regarding Child's Decision-Making Capacity Merely Based On Direct Interaction: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sharmila Velamur v. v. Sanjay and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 277

The Supreme Court ruled that in child custody matters, when there is uncertainty about the child's ability to make independent decisions, expert opinions confirming a disability should be prioritized over inferences drawn from direct interactions with the child.

The Court emphasized the importance of relying on expert medical assessments to determine the capacity of individuals with disabilities to make independent decisions. It ruled that when a specialist's expert opinion confirms a child's inability to make independent decisions, custody decisions should not be based on the child's implied or express consent, as it could have significant consequences for the child.

Granting Bail In Dowry Death Cases Despite Evidence Of Direct Involvement Shakes Public Confidence In Judiciary: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shabeen Ahmed v. State of UP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to a father-in-law and a mother-in-law in a case of alleged dowry death of their daughter-in-law, after observing that there was prima facie evidence regarding dowry demand and domestic violence.

"When a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness," the Court said criticising the High Court's "mechanical approach" in granting bail.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the case records suggested that the victim underwent extreme brutality in connection with a pattern of dowry demands. The Court warned that casually granting bail to accused in such cases will shake the public confidence in the judiciary given the broad societal impact of dowry death cases.

'Hard To Believe Highly Qualified Woman Allowed Man To Sexually Exploit Her For 16 Years On Marriage Promise': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Case Details: Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal proceeding against a man who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman, with whom he had a 16-year-old consensual sexual relationship, on a false pretext of marriage.

The Court reaffirmed that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry the woman from the outset of the relationship.

The Court expressed surprise that the complainant, a highly educated and well-established adult, did not report the alleged sexual assaults for over a decade, raising doubts about the credibility of her claims. It noted that she filed the FIR only after the accused married another woman, suggesting an ulterior motive to harass him.

Calling Someone "Miyan-Tiyan” & “Pakistani" In Poor Taste But Doesn't Amount To Offence Of Hurting Religious Sentiments: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hari Nandan Singhv v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 280

The Supreme Court observed that calling a man "Miyan-Tiyan" and "Pakistani" would be in poor taste, but would not amount to an offence of hurting his religious sentiment.

Discharging a person of the charge under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code(Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), the Court said:

"The appellant is accused of hurting 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."

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was considering an appeal filed against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which refused to discharge the appellant.

'Hangman's Noose Be Taken Off, Let Him Be In Prison Till End': Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Father Who Killed Children

Case Details: Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 281

Citing factors such as lack of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man accused of killing his two minor children to life imprisonment without remission.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that the death sentence should be awarded in “rarest of rare” cases after a thorough consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Because the appellant had no criminal antecedents, had good relations with his family before the incident, and other mitigating circumstances were not considered by the Courts below, the Court relying on the precedents like Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 and Deen Dayal Tiwari v. State of U.P deemed it appropriate to commute the death sentence to a life imprisonment without remission which means that the appellant have to spent rest of his life in jail.

“We direct that the hangman's noose be taken off the appellant-convict's neck, and instead that he remains in prison till the end of his days given by God Almighty.”, the Court observed.

'No Evidence': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Ex-Indian Army Officer; Notes Complainant Filed 8 Other Rape Cases

Case Details: Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr | SLP (Crl.) No. 14850 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 282

The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings in a rape case against a former Indian Army officer, Rakesh Walia, after finding the complaint to be unbelievable.

The Court found that the complaint was nothing but an "abuse of the process of law", because apart from her statements, there was no evidence on record. Moreover, the Court found that the same complainant had filed eight other identical FIRs against different individuals across different police stations in Delhi but refused to cooperate after the police began the investigation.

"Apart from her statement in the FIR and her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (as per new act, under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), there is no other evidence on record. However, what is most concerning before this Court is that the same respondent has filed nearly identical cases at least against eight other individuals (nine cases in total). These FIRs, lodged in different Police Stations across Delhi, involve offenses under Sections 34, 328, 354, 354A, 354D, 376, 377, 506, and 509 of IPC. Additionally, we have been informed that after lodging the FIR, the complainant has not cooperated with the investigation and has not appeared before this Court despite being served with notice."

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran observed that this was a fit case where the Delhi High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to quash the proceedings.

Specific Relief Act | Appellate Court Must Specify Time Period To Deposit Sale Consideration For Specific Performance: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) Through Its Lrs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 283

The Supreme Court advised Appellate Courts to specify the time limit for depositing the balance sale consideration, as required under Order XX Rule 12A of the CPC, in cases of specific performance involving the sale or lease of immovable property.

Order XX Rule 12A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) states that where a decree for the specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property orders that the purchase-money or other sum be paid by the purchaser or lessee, the court shall specify the period within which the payment shall be made.

The Court ruled that due to operation of doctrine of merger, the decree passed by the trial court specifying the time limit to deposit the balance sale consideration gets merged with the Appellate Court's order, and if the Appellate Court fails to specify the time limit to deposit the balance sale consideration, it would be unjust to deny execution of the decree just because there was belated deposit of balance sale consideration.

IBC Moratorium Does Not Bar Execution Of Penalties Imposed Under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Saranga Anilkumar Aggarwal v. Bhavesh Dhirajlal Sheth & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 284

The Supreme Court (March 4) ruled that an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) does not apply to penalty proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“CP Act”).

The Court explained that Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes certain liabilities, such as fines and penalties, from the moratorium's effect. As a result, penalties imposed by Consumer Redressal Forums under the regulatory statutes like the CP Act do not fall within the scope of the moratorium.

“The present case does not involve a mere financial dispute but concerns the enforcement of consumer rights through regulatory penalties. Given that the legislative intent behind the CP Act is to ensure compliance with consumer welfare measures, staying such penalties would be contrary to public policy. Further, the appellant cannot invoke insolvency proceedings as a shield to evade statutory liabilities. The objective of the IBC is to provide a mechanism for resolving financial distress, not to nullify obligations arising under regulatory statutes.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale delivered the verdict where the property builder, who faced multiple penalties (27 in total) imposed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) for failing to deliver possession of residential units to homebuyers within the agreed timeline, filed the appeal cotnteding that since aapplication under Section 95 of the IBC has been filed against them triggering an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, the penalties cannot be enforced against them.

Supreme Court Wonders Why NCLAT Wrote Long Order On Delay Condonation Application Despite High Pendency

Case Details: Power Infrastructure India v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 285

The Supreme Court expressed surprise that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), despite having a high pendency of cases, devoted extensive time and effort to writing a 17-page order on a delay condonation application.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that lengthy submissions and pleadings by members of the Bar often contribute to unnecessarily verbose orders.

“We wonder why the NCLAT which has a high pendency should devote so much of time and energy in writing an order running into 17 pages for considering the application for condonation of delay. While we say this, we cannot ignore that some times, such long orders are required to be written due to verbose and unnecessary long submissions of the members of the Bar. We find from the decisions after decisions which come before us that in many cases, the members of the Bar make very lengthy submissions before the NCLAT and file lengthy pleadings and affidavits in an application for the condonation of delay”, the Court observed.

S. 141 NI Act | Non-Executive & Independent Company Directors Not Liable For Cheque's Dishonour: Supreme Court

Case Details: K. S. Mehta v. M/S Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 286

The Supreme Court reiterated that non-executive and independent directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for the company's obligations under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), unless their direct involvement in the company's financial transactions is established.

The Court held that merely holding the position of the non-executive and independent director of the company would not make them liable for the company's default unless their active involvement is proved. It added that only directors responsible for the day-to-day affairs and business operations of the company can be made liable for the company's default.

“This Court has consistently held that 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.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma provided relief to the Appellants, who were non-executive directors of the company, quashing a criminal proceeding against them registered under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act.

S. 45 Evidence Act | Opinion Of Handwriting Expert Must Be Treated With Caution: Supreme Court

Case Details: C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D, Chennai

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 287

The Supreme Court observed that while expert evidence may not always require corroboration, courts must exercise caution when relying on expert testimony particularly the handwriting expert due to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved the fabrication of a mark sheet used for admission to an MBBS course.

S.306 IPC | Suicide Note Alone Insufficient For Conviction Unless Its Proved There Was Incitement By Accused Proximate To Death: Supreme Court

Case Details: Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 288

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of committing an offence of abetment of suicide by blackmailing the deceased using compromising photographs and videos.

The Court observed that for invoking the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC, the prosecution must prove instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid with a clear mens rea to abet suicide. Mere harassment or differences are not sufficient unless there is a proximate act leading to suicide, the court said.

"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," the Court observed.

Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Transfer Complaint, Raise Objection Before Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 289

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking transfer of various cheque dishonour complaints against the petitioner observing that the lack of territorial jurisdiction of court in which complaint is filed cannot be a ground to transfer the complaint to another court.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a petition seeking transfer of 22 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a company from Varanasi, UP to Mumbai, Maharashtra.

“The contention of the petitioners is that the trial court before which complaints have been filed by the respondents has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioners are entitled to raise the said contention before the learned trial magistrate who is empowered to return the complaint for presentation to proper court if the magistrate is satisfied that the court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be considered in transfer petition”, the Court held.

O 39 R 2A CPC | Even If Injunction Order Was Subsequently Set Aside, Party Remains Liable For Its Prior Violation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt Lavanya C & Anr v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deseased By Lrs. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 290

The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent setting aside of an injunction order would not preclude the courts from holding the party guilty of disobedience of the committed during the pendency of the order.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol delivered the ruling in the context of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, which specifies the mechanism to take action against those who disobey injunction orders or other orders made under Order 39 CPC Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

The Court emphasized that a party remains liable for violating an injunction order while it was in force, even if the order is later set aside.

The Court also held that given the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and a client, an advocate cannot provide an undertaking without explicit authorization from the client.

'Courts Shouldn't Hesitate To Deny Liberty To Accused If Necessary For Corruption-Free Society': Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

Case Details: Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding illegal gratification.

The Court held that in serious offenses like corruption, courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail to uphold public confidence in the justice system. It emphasized that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases where there is a prima facie indication of false implication or frivolous allegations.

"Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

S.138 NI Act Complaint Cannot Be Transferred Under S.406 CrPC For Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/S Shri Sendhuragro and Oil Industries Pranab Prakash v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. | T.P.(Crl.) No. 608/2024 and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292

The Supreme Court held that a case under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) cannot be transferred from one place to another for the lack of jurisdiction under Section 406(Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also From Judgment: NI Act Allows Filing Of Cheque Dishonour Complaint At Place Of Payee Bank; Accused Can't Seek Transfer Citing Inconvenience: Supreme Court

When Can Criminal Trial Be Transferred From One State Under S.406 CrPC? Supreme Court Explains

Courts To Dispose Execution Petitions Within 6 Months, Presiding Officer Liable On Failure: Supreme Court

Case Details: Periyammal (Dead Thr. Lrs.) and Ors v. v. Rajamani and Anr. Etc | SLP(C) No. 8490-8492/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 293

The Supreme Court today(March 6) directed all High Courts to call for information on all pending execution petitions in the district judiciary. It passed the directions after observing that the executing Courts are taking three to four years to pass appropriate orders, thereby, frustrating the entire decree which is in the favour of the decree-holder.

The Court directed the High Courts to issue an administrative circular asking the trial courts to ensure that pending execution petitions are decided within six months. On failure to do so, the Presiding Officer will be answerable to the High Court on the administrative side.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that in Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), the Court had directed that the execution proceedings be completed within six months fromthe date of filing. Same direction was reiterated in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors.(2022). Despite these directions, execution petitions are facing inordinate delays, the Court lamented.

The Court also observed that an application filed under Section 47 of CPC relating to the determination of questions related to the execution of the decree would be deemed as an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 if it raises questions of right, title, or interest in the property.

No Illegality In Considering S.319 CrPC Application After Trial Based On HC's Revision Order: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 294

In a key ruling on Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court held that while the power to summon an additional accused must be exercised before the trial concludes, if a pre-trial application for summoning is rejected and the High Court, in revision, sets aside the rejection and orders reconsideration, the application cannot be dismissed solely because it was heard after the trial ends. The Court ruled that it relates back to the original pre-trial rejection order.

“What can be discerned from the aforesaid is that if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction either setting aside or modifying the order of the Trial Court for the purpose of Section 319, the same would relate back to the original order passed by the Trial Court and substitute it to the extent of modification.”, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

High Court Can't Direct ED To Register ECIR Merely On Prima Facie Finding That Predicate Offence Existed: Supreme Court

Case Details: P Madhavan Pillai v. Rajendran Unnithan and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 295

The Supreme Court set aside a direction passed by the Kerala High Court to the Enforcement Directorate to register a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in an alleged Co-operative bank fraud case.

The High Court could not have passed a "drastic order" to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) merely on the basis of a prima facie conclusion that a predicate offence has been committed.

"High Court had no reason to pass a drastic order of directing the ED to register an ECIR only because the High Court prima facie came to a conclusion that a predicate offence exists," observed a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench also set aside the ECIR which was registered on the basis of the High Court's direction.

The bench left it to the ED to take a call on the question of initiating proceedings under the PMLA.

Every Document Pertaining To An Election Is Important, All Efforts Should Be Made To Preserve Them: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 296

Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same, observed the Supreme Court.

The Court made this observation in the context of an election of a Gram Pradhan in a village in Uttar Pradesh, which was held in 2021. There were disputes regarding the final count of votes polled and the Presiding Officers' records were missing. Therefore, the Court observed that the final counts was in the realm of questionability.

The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort, the Court noted.

While ordering a recount, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh observed:

"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."

The Court also observed that in an election, each vote has its own value, irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election and hence its sanctity has to be protected.

Refusal Of Alleged Rape Victim To Allow Medical Examination Raises Negative Inference Against Her: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 297

The Supreme Court has reiterated that adverse inference can be drawn against a woman, who is alleged to be a victim in a rape case, if she refuses medical examination.

"It is a well-settled proposition of law that non- allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape- victim raises negative inferences against them," the Court observed, referring to Dola v. State of Odisha, (2018) 18 SCC 695.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was deciding an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against a judgment of the High Court which acquitted the accused in a rape case.

Preventive Detention Order To Be Quashed When Passed Without Considering Bail Granted By Magistrate: Supreme Court

Case Details: Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 298

The Supreme Court set aside a preventive detention order against an alleged key member of a syndicate that smuggled foreign gold into India observing that the detaining authority failed to consider the conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate when granting him bail in case arising from the same allegations.

A bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that while the conditions imposed by the Magistrate were outlined in the detention order, the detaining authority did not discuss whether these conditions were sufficient to restrain the detenu from indulging in further smuggling activities. The court granted relief on this ground even though the appellant-detenu's wife, did not raise this contention.

When Conviction Is Under Both POCSO Act & IPC, Offender Liable To Be Sentenced Under Provision Prescribing Higher Punishment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 299

The Supreme Court clarified that when a person is convicted for an offence under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) and the rape provisions of the IPC, Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates the imposition of the higher degree of punishment prescribed either under the POCSO Act or Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The court further stated that no plea for a lesser punishment under the POCSO Act can be entertained if the IPC prescribes a higher punishment for certain offences by arguing that Section 42A, as a special law, overrides the IPC, which is considered a general law.

In India, Far More Demand For Government Jobs Than Available Posts; Absolute Scruplousness Necessary In Selection Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 300

"In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available," observed the Supreme Court while setting aside the bail granted to the accused in case over the use of a "dummy candidate" in a Civil Engineer Competitive Examination.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanudding Amanullah allowed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the High Court's order for grant of bail to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan.

While setting aside the High Court's bail, the Supreme Court observed:

“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.”

Sale Under Power Of Attorney Unaffected By Subsequent Cancellation Of PoA: Supreme Court

Case Details: V Ravikumar v. S Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 301

The Supreme Court has observed that sale transactions carried out on the basis of a valid Power of Attorney (PoA) cannot be sought to be set aside later on the ground that the PoA was cancelled subsequently.

Holding so, the Court affirmed an order of the Trial Court rejecting a plaint, which sought to annul certain past sale transactions on the basis of the subsequent cancellation of the PoA.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed:

"We are clear in our minds that the cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances made which are clearly on the strength of the power conferred on the appellant. There is no contention raised as to the power of attorney having not conferred the power to enter into conveyances or that such power of attorney was executed by reason of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant. 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."

Supreme Court Directs States/UTs To Notify Sanctioned Posts Of Teachers For Children With Special Needs Before March 28

Case Details: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 302

The Supreme Court (March 7) directed all the States and Union Territories to notify the sanctioned posts of teachers for special children and immediately begin the selection procedure of the same. It added that those teachers working on an ad-hoc basis in different states be regularised by a scrutiny committee on the merits of each candidate.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a Public Interest Litigation which highlighted the lack of special educators for teaching students with special needs.

The Court noted that despite several orders passed directing compliance with the October 2021 judgment in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey vs Union of India, none of the states have 'made any appointments on the sanctioned posts for Special Teachers.'

'Shocking': Supreme Court Slams J&K Admin For 16 Years' Refusal To Comply With HC Order On Regularisation Of Daily Wager

Case Details: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors v. Abdul Rehman Khanday & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 303

The Supreme Court of India made a scathing observation regarding the 16-year long delay by the UT of J&K in complying with the High Court's order, which directed the government to consider the case of the respondent daily wagers for regularization as per specific Government Order SRO 64 of 1994.

IN 2007, J&K High Court had passed the directions to appellants to consider the case of the respondent at par with other daily wage workers, who had received the benefits of regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 back in 2006.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that, “What concerns us is not the delay of decades alone, but also the incontrovertible fact that the poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order of the learned Single Judge.”

The court further stated, “We consider the instant case fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers, besides also recommending strong disciplinary actions against them.”

However, the court refrained from passing any such direction, considering the fact that the contempt proceedings were still pending before the Single Judge of the J&K High Court.

Supreme Court Discharges Employers In Culpable Homicide Case Over Electrocution Death Of Workers Engaged For Decoration

Case Details: Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 304

The Supreme Court discharged two persons accused of not providing safety equipment (e.g., helmets, safety belts, rubber shoes) to their employees, leading to their deaths due to electrocution while working on a signboard by using an iron ladder.

The Trial Court and High Court rejected the appellants' (employers) discharge application, holding that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it was incumbent upon the courts below to have a prima facie view while deciding an application for discharge on whether the offence alleged against the applicant was made out or not. The Court held that the appellants lacked requisite knowledge or intention to cause death.

Supreme Court Exempts Wife From Paying Stamp Duty For Flat Acquired As Part Of Compromise In Divorce Case

Case Details: Arun Rameshchand Arya v. Parul Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 305

The Supreme Court exempted a wife, who received a flat as part of a compromise with her husband in a matrimonial dispute, from the payment of stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908 (“Act”).

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the husband and wife, during the pendency of the petition filed by the husband seeking transfer of the divorce case filed by the wife, agreed to mutually dissolve their marriage in the mediation proceedings.

The Court, relying on the case of Mukesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2024) said that since the flat was the subject matter of the compromise and formed part of the proceedings before the Court, the transfer would be exempt from stamp duty under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.

“Manifestly, the flat-in-question is the subject matter of the compromise and as a consequence, it forms part of the proceedings before this Court. Hence, the exclusion provided by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 will apply and the registration of the flat-in-question in the exclusive name of the respondent-wife would be exempted from the payment of stamp duty.”, the court observed.

'Agreement To Lease Didn't Create Leasehold Rights Without Execution': Supreme Court In Delhi Development Authority's Appeal

Case Details: Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 306

While interpreting the clauses in an agreement to lease entered into between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and a party, the Supreme Court noted that the agreement to lease did not create leasehold rights unless the lease deed was executed and registered.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was deciding Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) appeal against the High Court's ruling, which had affirmed the auction sale of the suit property.

When Selection Is Based Entirely On Interview Marks, It's Reasonable To Presume Existence Of Arbitrariness & Favouritism: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 307

The Supreme Court upheld the 2016 decision of the then BJP government of Assam to cancel a select list for the recruitment process of 104 Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) notified in 2014 by the then Indian National Congress government.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan found that the cancellation was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the anomalies in the recruitment process identified by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, including skewed district representation and reservation policy violations.

The Court further highlighted that the recruitment was based on interviews without any written exam and was not governed by any Rules.

“Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board”, the Court observed.

The Court observed –

“the Government itself felt that the selection being entirely based on interview, the same admitted an element of arbitrariness and that the assessment of candidates being based merely on the basis of marks at the interview, was reasonable for drawing a presumption of being misused for favouritism and could well be regarded as suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. In such circumstances, it is indeed difficult, if not impossible, for a court to law to substitute its decision for the one taken by the Government reasoning that the selection has not been challenged by any unsuccessful candidate.”

Maharashtra Slum Act | 'Censused Slums' Also 'Slums', No Separate Notification Needed For Redevelopment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Ors. v. Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 308

The Supreme Court observed that once a slum area is declared as 'censused slum' i.e., the slums located on land belonging to government or municipal undertaking, than such slums are automatically eligible for redevelopment under the Slum Act without the need for a separate notification under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”).

“if a slum is a 'censused slum' then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and no separate notification is required under the Slum Act. In other words, 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.”, the court observed.

Motor Accident Claims | 'Legal Representative' Is One Who Suffers Loss; Need Not Be Spouse, Child Or Parent Of Deceased: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 309

The Supreme Court ruled that the term 'legal representative' under the Motor Vehicle Act should not be given a narrow interpretation to exclude those persons as claimants who were dependent on the deceased's income

The Court said that if the claimants were dependent on the deceased's income, then they shall be granted compensation. A "legal representative" is one, who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent or child, the Court held, referring to precedents.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | 'Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Not Proved In Trap Case': Supreme Court Acquits Govt Employees

Case Details: Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 310

The Supreme Court acquitted two government employees accused of demanding and accepting bribe after noting that the prosecution failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe.

The Court reiterated that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) would not arise against the accused unless the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is established by the prosecution.

Further, the Court stressed the importance of the independent witnesses' testimony in trap cases to ensure the credibility of the evidence i.e., if independent witnesses turn hostile or contradict the prosecution's case, it raises reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.

PMLA | Money Laundering Offence Continues So Long As Proceeds Of Crime Are Concealed, Used Or Projected As Untainted: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 311

Observing that the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence and not a one-time occurrence, the Supreme Court (March 17) refused to discharge Pradeep Sharma, a former Gujarat IAS officer in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

He was accused of generating proceeds of crime during his tenure as Collector by receiving bribes.

He sought discharge, arguing that the alleged criminal activity leading to the generation of proceeds of crime occurred before the PMLA came into effect. Opposing the plea, the Enforcement Directorate argued that the criminal activity of money laundering was a continuing offence.

"It is well established that offences under the PMLA are of a continuing nature, and the act of money laundering does not conclude with a single instance but extends so long as the proceeds of crime are concealed, used, or projected as untainted property. The legislative intent behind the PMLA is to combat the menace of money laundering, which by its very nature involves transactions spanning over time.", the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed.

Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Bar On Auroville Township Project, Says Development Equally Important As Environment Protection

Case Details: Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersap Mody and Ors | CA 5781-5782/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The Supreme Court (March 17) set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal which barred the Auroville Foundation from developmental activities in their township in Puducherry.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal filed by Auroville Foundation against the order passed by the NGT Southern Zone Bench in April 2022, which barred the Foundation from its developmental activities till they obtained an Environmental Clearance.

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi said that the right to development was equally important as the right to clean environment.

"Though it is true that precautionary principle and 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 Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the right to development equally claims priority under the fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, there is a need for sustainable development striking a golden balance between the right to development and the right to clean environment," Justice Trivedi read out the judgment.

Auroville Residents Have No Right To Be Part Of Council/Committee Formed By Foundation's Governing Body: Supreme Court

Case Details: Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey | Diary No. - 13723/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 313

The Supreme Court (March 17) held that the Residents' Assembly or any individual resident of the Auroville Foundation cannot claim any right to be a part of a Committee or Council constituted by the Governing Board of the Foundation.

A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasana B Varale set aside the Madras High Court's order which quashed the standing order of 1st June 2022 constituting the Auroville Town Development Council (ATDC). The High Court had quashed the ATDC constitution, inter alia, on the ground that it was formed without the aid and advice of the Residents' Assembly.

Allowing the Auroville Foundation's appeal against the High Court's order, the Supreme Court observed that as per the Auroville Foundation Act or the Rules made thereunder, no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents' Assembly or upon any individual resident to be part of the Committee or the Council constituted by the Governing Council.

The Supreme Court held that the functions of the Residents' Assembly are confined only to advising the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the AF Act and not any further.

The Court observed that the High Court "thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the AF Act and in setting aside the impugned notification containing Standing Order dated 01.06.2022."

Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Trivedi said, "Some disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing the petitions one after the other, dragging the Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such ill-motivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions to the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Foundation."

While allowing the appeal, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent Natasha Storey which is to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

No S.138 NI Act Case Against Ex-Director Of Company When Cause Of Action Arose After IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vishnoo Mittal v. M/S Shakti Trading Company

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 314

The Supreme Court held that if the cause of action for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has arisen after the declaration of moratorium with respect to the company as per the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), then the proceedings under S.138 NI Act cannot be continued against the ex-director of the company.

The Court reasoned that upon imposition of the moratorium, the board of directors' powers are suspended, and management of the corporate debtor is taken over by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP). As a result, directors cannot be held liable for actions they are no longer authorized to take.

“When the notice was issued to the appellant (director), 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.”, the Court observed.

The Court explained that the cause of action for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) arises not on the dishonour of the cheque but when the amount remains unpaid after the expiry of fifteen days following the receipt of the demand notice.

'Lalita Kumari' Judgment Doesn't Create Absolute Rule That Preliminary Enquiry Is Necessary In Every Case Before FIR: Supreme Court

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315

The Supreme Court observed in a judgment that the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors(2014) "does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR."

The Court added that the Lalita Kumari decision reaffirmed "the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence."

"The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, 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," the Court added.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale made these observations while rejecting the bail plea of former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in connection to a 2023 illegal land allotment case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch.

Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes | Default Retiral Benefit Scheme Is Pension & Gratuity Unless Employee Specifically Opts For Contributory Provident Fund: Supreme Court

Case Details: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a retired University professor. A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that under the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, the default retiral benefit scheme is General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, unless an employee specifically opts for the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. The Court set aside the Patna High Court's judgment and directed the University to provide the appellant with pension benefits within four months.

International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests

Case Details: Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 317

In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus).

The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for an appointment of an arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration where the Petitioner was a foreign-Columbia-based entity, whereas the Respondent was an Indian-Gujarat based entity.

Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court Asks High Courts/Tribunals To Direct Transfer Of Compensation To Claimants' Bank Accounts

Case Details: Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 318

The Supreme Court (March 18) emphasized the need for the direct transfer of motor accident claim compensation to claimants' bank accounts to minimize delays and ensure timely payments.

“The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.”, the Court observed.

In this regard, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal streamlined the process for the transfer of the claim amount to the claimant's bank account. It stated that the claimants should provide bank account details at the initial stage of the claim process so that tribunals can issue directions for direct transfers after the passing of awards. Further, for minors or cases requiring fixed deposits, the Court said that banks should ensure compliance and report to the Tribunal.

Supreme Court Criticises HC For Refusing BAMS Degree To Student After Allowing Him To Complete Course Through Interim Orders

Case Details: Zaid Sheikh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 319

The Supreme Court (March 18) provided relief to a BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) student to whom degree was denied on the ground that he did not meet the eligibility criteria of having studied English in 10+2 class at the time of the admission to the Course.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice A.G. Masih ordered the issuance of the BAMS course degree to the student, noting that the initial deficiency of failing to study English as a subject in his higher secondary examination at the time of admission was later rectified when he successfully cleared the English test subsequently, as required by the college.

Appearance Of Only Advocates Physically Present & Arguing In Court & One Assisting Counsel Will Be Recorded: Supreme Court

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 320

The Supreme Court passed orders (March 19) regarding the recording of advocates' appearances in cases.

The Court stated that the appearances of only Senior Advocates or Advocate-on-Record or Advcoate, who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing of the matter and one Advocate/Advocate-on-Record each for assistance in Court to such arguing Sr Advocate, Advocate-on-Record or Advocate, as the case may be, will be recorded in the record of proceedings. The Court noted that the Appearance Slip as per Form 30 prescribed by the SC Rules only allowed the recording of these appearances.

"Therefore, along with the arguing Senior Advocate or AOR or Advocate appearing for a party, further additional appearance of only one Advocate or AOR as the case may be, who is assisting in the matter, could be recorded," the Court observed.

The Supreme Court held that no advocate, other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party, can appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the AOR or permitted by the Court.

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate's right to appear in Court is coupled with the duty to be present in the Court at the time of hearing.

The Court also reiterated that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) should not be mere “name lenders” and should effectively participate in the proceedings.

If Parties Attempt To Obtain Order By Trick, Courts Can Impose Costs For Vexatious Litigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Leelawati (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 321

The Supreme Court criticized a litigant for filing multiple petitions before the High Court while concealing the dismissal of an earlier petition. Dismissing the appeal, the Court justified the imposition of costs, and increased the penalty to ₹50,000, emphasizing that such measures are essential to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation.

If the parties misuse the process and attempt to obtain an order by "trick and strategem", the Courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the case where the Appellant had preferred an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision dismissing a petition filed by him with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- for filing a vexatious petition.

HC Bench Cannot Hear Case Without Chief Justice's Authorisation Merely Based On Consent Of Parties: Supreme Court

Case Details: Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited v. Grse Limited Workmens Union & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 322

The Supreme Court set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, emphasizing that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and that any bench hearing a case without the Chief Justice's authorization violates judicial propriety. The Court noted that the High Court's Division Bench lacked jurisdiction under the roster but proceeded based solely on the parties' consent.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal heard the case concerning a Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment, which entertained an intra-court appeal against a Single Bench's order to de-list a writ petition. The hearing proceeded based on the parties' consent, despite lacking authorization from the Chief Justice.

Child Victim's Silence & Tears During Examination Alone Can't Benefit Rape Accused: Supreme Court Restores Conviction After 38 Years

Case Details: State of Rajasthan v. Chatra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 323

The Supreme Court criticised a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court for setting aside the conviction of a person for rape of a minor girl only on the ground that the child victim, during the cross-examination, remained silent and only shed tears.

The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the manner in which the High Court, through a 6-page order, set aside the well-considered judgment of the trial court merely on the ground of silence of the child victim during examination.

The High Court had overturned the conviction of the Respondent-accused, noting that the prosecutrix(victim girl) remained silent during the examination and therefore, the in absence of direct testimony from the prosecutrix about the incident, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol overturned the High Court's judgment.

Plea To Regulate Private Hospitals' Medicine Charges: Supreme Court Leaves Issue For States' Policy Decision

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 337/ 2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 324

In a public interest litigation assailing private hospitals' compulsion of patients/attendants to purchase medicines/implants/medical devices only from pharmacies run or recommended by them, which allegedly charge rates higher than notified market rates, the Supreme Court directed all State Governments to consider the issue and take policy decisions as they deem fit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh disposed of the matter, ordering, "We dispose of this petition with direction to all state governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decision as they deem fit".

The Court observed that the subjects of public health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries fall in List II (state list) and therefore relevant measures can be taken by state governments keeping their local conditions in view. "It may not be advisable for this Court to issue any mandatory directions which may hamper the [...] for hospitals in private sector but at the same time, it is necessary to sensitize state governments re: the alleged problem of unreasonable charges or exploitation of patients in private hospitals", the Court said.

The Court further questioned if it would be prudent for the Union/States to introduce a policy which regulates each and every activity in the private hospitals' space. Stipulating the issues arising for consideration, it was concluded that the policymakers are best equipped to take a holistic view of the matter "and frame guidelines as may be required to ensure that there is no exploitation of the patients and their attendants and at the same time, there is no discouragement and an unreasonable restriction for the private entities to enter the health sector".

Supreme Court Grants Bail In UAPA Case Noting That It Was Applied To Defeat SC Order Of Interim Protection, Condemns Chhattisgarh Police

Case Details: Manish Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 17921/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 325

The Supreme Court deprecated the conduct of Chhattisgarh police in applying the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against an accused soon after he was granted interim protection from arrest in another case.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its strong displeasure with the police action.

"Obviously, to defeat the interim order of this court 2nd January 2025, the action has been taken by the police against appellant to ensure that he is taken into custody. The interim order dated 2.01.2025 of this court is completely nullified. We deprecate this conduct," the Court added.

"Under our order dated second 17th February, we had indicated that we will consider the prayer for grant of bail in FIR no. 39 of 2024 as well. Considering the fact that it is so apparent that arrest of the appellant in connection to the side offence only with the view to defeat the interim order of this court dated 2nd January 2025, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the said case as well," the Court ordered.

Supreme Court Criticises Anticipatory Bail Condition That Accused Should Be Arrested After Filing Of Chargesheet

Case Details: Ritesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 326

The Supreme Court disapproved of the Patna High Court's anticipatory bail order which imposed a condition that upon filing of the charge sheet, the trial court shall take coercive steps against the applicant, including an arrest.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra called the imposition of such a condition to be unwarranted and instead, said that the High Court could have left it open for the trial court to take a call on taking coercive steps after the submission of the charge-sheet.

Land Acquired By Govt Cannot Be Transferred Back By Beneficiary To Original Owner Through Private Agreement: Supreme Court

Case Details: Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, through its Chairman v. Bhagwan Devi (Dead), through her LR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 327

The Supreme Court ruled that land acquired by the government through its sovereign power of eminent domain for public purposes cannot be transferred back to the original owner by the beneficiary of the acquisition through private agreements.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard a case in which the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board ("Board") had agreed to transfer half of the total land acquired for establishing an agricultural market back to the landowner.

Describing it as a fraud on the State's power of eminent domain, the Court nullified the agreement by which the Board sought to transfer the acquired land back to the original owner. The Court held that once land is acquired by the government for a public purpose and its possession is vested with the beneficiary, it cannot be returned to the original owner through private agreements.

Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Include Accused In Charge Sheet; Instead Issue Summons To Person Proposed To Be Added: Supreme Court

Case Details: Gopal Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 328

The Supreme Court observed that if a court intends to add a person as an accused, it cannot direct the police to include their name in the charge sheet. Instead, the court may ssue a summons to the proposed accused if sufficient grounds exist, even if they are not named in the charge sheet.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the case where the Petitioner's name was included in the police's charge sheet on the direction of the Magistrate and was subsequently summoned as accused which was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Magistrate Cannot Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC If Complainant Didn't Approach Police Before Under 154(1) & 154(3): Supreme Court

Case Details: Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr. v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 329

The Supreme Court has reiterated that before a complainant can seek a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR and investigate a cognizable offence, they must first exhaust the remedies under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC.

Under Section 154(1), a person must report the offence to the officer in charge of a police station, who is required to record it in writing, read it back to the informant, and obtain their signature.

If the police refuse to register the complaint, Section 154(3) allows the complainant to escalate the matter by submitting a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent may then investigate the case or assign a subordinate officer to do so.

Only after these steps are taken and the remedies under Section 154 are exhausted can the complainant approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) to seek an order for investigation.

IBC | Once Resolution Plan Approved, Dues Not Part Of It Get Extinguished: Supreme Court Rejects Post-Resolution Income Tax Demand

Case Details: Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 330

The Supreme Court (March 20) declined a claim raised by the Income Tax Department to include a tax demand in a Resolution Plan after it was approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Citing the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657, which held that all claims not included in the resolution plan are extinguished upon its approval, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed:

“in view of the declaration of law made by this Court (Ghanashyam Mishra's case), all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code. In this case, the income tax dues of the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, the dues of the first respondent owed by the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 stand extinguished.”

S.53A Transfer Of Property Act Protection Not Available If Person Entered Into Agreement Knowing About Pending Litigation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Raju Naidu v. Chenmouga Sundra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 331

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), for a person possessing a property under part performance of a contract, is not available to a party who knowingly entered into the agreement despite being aware of pending litigation.

The Court approved the view of the High Court that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the appellant had knowledge about the pendency of the suit when he had entered into an agreement with the father of the respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

The Court held that Section 53A TPA cannot be invoked by a transferee to obstruct or resist the claims of decree holders who have legally acquired rights over the suit property. It emphasized that a transferee who enters into a sale agreement during pending litigation, despite lacking a valid claim, cannot use this provision to override the decree holders' rights.

“the Courts have uniformly held that the 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. In fact, the Courts have deprecated such obstruction.”, the court observed.

Not 'Consumer' Without Privity Of Contract: Supreme Court Rejects Flat Seller's Consumer Complaint Against Financier Of Buyer

Case Details: M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited v. Snehasis Nanda

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332

The Supreme Court (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that a party having no privity of contract with the service provider cannot be regarded as a consumer as per the Act.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the arbitration clauses in an agreement would not override the consumer's choice to approach the consumer forum for adjudication of the dispute.

Prioritise Criminal Appeals Of Elderly Accused On Bail, Especially When Crime Is Old: Supreme Court To High Courts

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamlal and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 333

The Supreme Court advised the High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals, where the accused are on bail. If the accused persons have remained on bail, especially in cases involving life sentences, and the appeal is ultimately dismissed after several years, then sending the accused back to prison might be difficult, particularly when they have attained old age.

The Court noted that generally, the High Courts prioritise appeals where the accused are in prison. However, there should be a balance struck so as to give adequate priority to the appeals where the accused are on bail, especially when the accused are aged and a long time has passed since the crime.

"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," the Court said.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice AG Masih made these observations while deciding an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh regarding a crime which occurred in 1989

Motor Accident Claim Can't Be Rejected Merely Because Vehicle's Make Was Wrongly Described: Supreme Court

Case Details: Parameshwar Subray Hegde v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 334

The Supreme Court observed that discrepancy in the make of the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim when the vehicle's registration number and other key details are consistent and correctly mentioned.

Because of the change of make of the vehicle, i.e., TATA Sumo in place of TATA Spacio, the claim as allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was rejected by the High Court upon setting aside the claim awarded by the Tribunal even though the vehicle's registration and other key details remained the same.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar observed:

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the registration number of the offending vehicle is KA-31/6059, was found involved in the criminal case which is one and the same, the finding of the High Court cannot be sustained. Even mere misdescription of the make of the vehicle could not have been treated as consistency or a ground to dismiss the claim petition itself, particularly when there is no change in the registration number of the offending vehicle. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.”

Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Challenge Against Haj Policy 2025 Implementation

Case Details: Kolkata Tours and Travels (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 335

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the implementation of the Union Government's Haj Policy, 2025 framed in consultation with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

A batch of Writ Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the implementation of the Haj Policy, 2025 where the petitioners, who were Haj Group Organisers (“HGOs”), challenged the allocation of quotas of Haj pilgrims under the Haj-2025 Policy, alleging that the allocation was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. They claimed that the allocation was inequitable, with some HGOs receiving disproportionately fewer pilgrims than others.

After the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that quota redistribution among the three HGOs had been carried out for a more equitable allocation and that various HGOs were permitted to submit final MoUs per the Union's notice dated 18.03.2015—outlining CHGO (Combined HGOs) terms and internal quota distribution—by 20.03.2025 (today), the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh approved the arrangement. The Court also encouraged lead and non-lead HGOs to reallocate surplus pilgrims to those with fewer allocations.

Candidates Can't Be Rejected Solely Because They Had Higher Degrees Than Qualification Prescribed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 336

The Supreme Court observed that a candidate possessing a higher degree of qualification cannot be rejected solely because a lower degree of qualification is required for a particular post.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Appellants, who are post-graduates in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology, and applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (“FSO”) were disqualified during the recruitment process on the grounds that their qualifications did not meet the criteria specified in the advertisement.

Setting aside the impugned ruling, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta stressed that the term "degree" in recruitment advertisements and statutory provisions should be interpreted to include Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees unless explicitly excluded.

1990 Kashmir University VC Murder Case | 'TADA Procedural Safeguards Violated': Supreme Court Dismisses CBI Appeals Against Acquittals

Case Details: State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 337

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI challenging the acquittal of seven persons in the case for the abduction and murder of Kashmir University Vice Chancellor and his Personal Secretary in 1990 by the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front

The Court affirmed the acquittal of the accused persons citing a lack of credible evidence and procedural lapses in recording confessions.

The Court held that the confessional statements were unreliable and failed to meet the procedural safeguards under the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, as the recording officer failed to ensure the voluntariness of the accused while taking confessions.

A bench of Justices Abay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “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, and it is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.”

PMLA | Person Need Not Be Named As Accused In Complaint To Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3): Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India v. J.P. Singh, Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 338

While dealing with a challenge to retention of an accused's electronic items, documents, etc. under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court observed that a person need not be named as an accused in the complaint in order for Section 8(3)(a) (dealing with continuation of retention) to apply. Rather, it is sufficient if a complaint alleging commission of an offense under Section 3 of the Act is pending.

"clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings relating to an offence under the PMLA in a Court...For attracting clause (a), it is enough if a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is pending. It is not necessary for the applicability of clause (a) that the person affected by the order under Section 8(3) must be shown as an accused in the complaint. The complaint under Section 44 will always relate to the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The order of cognizance is of the offence and not of the accused or the offender", observed a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh.

Liberal Approach Be Adopted In Condoning Delay When Case's Merits Need Examination: Supreme Court

Case Details: Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339

The Supreme Court observed that although a delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the case's merit cannot be discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation.

The Court further emphasized that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice.

“There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that 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.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard where the Appellant claimed ownership rights over the suit property/land, which was classified as grazing land under the ownership of the MP Government and was allocated for the public purpose.

Supreme Court Cautions Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders In Group Clashes, Acquits 6 In 2002 Gujarat Riots Case

Case Details: Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340

The Supreme Court observed that in cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, Courts must be cautious to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of their liberty.

In such type of cases, the Courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him. The mere presence of persons, who out of curiosity gathered to witness the incidents, should not be a ground to convict them when there is no overt act alleged against them.

The Supreme Court made these remarks while acquitting six individuals who were convicted for rioting and unlawful assembly in a case related to violence during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Student Suicides | Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Address Mental Health Concerns In Colleges

Case Details: Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 341

The Supreme Court (March 24) directed the formation of the National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs).

The Court also held that in the event of any unfortunate incident, such as a suicide occurring on campus, it becomes the unequivocal duty of the institution to promptly lodge an F.I.R. with the appropriate authorities.

The Court took note of various reports regarding caste discrimination, ragging and academic pressures driving students to suicide. It reminded that universities are not just centres of learning but institutions responsible for the well-being and holistic development of their students. The Court said that every institution must have a culture of sensitivity and proactive intervention so that every student feels safe, supported, and empowered to pursue their aspirations without fear or discrimination.

S. 14 Partnership Act | Partner's Contribution Becomes Firm's Property, Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Ownership: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sachin Jaiswal v. M/S Hotel Alka Raje & Other

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 342

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 27) observed that a contribution made by the partner to the partnership firm becomes the firm's property as per Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and neither the partner nor his legal heirs would have an exclusive right over the firm's property after the partner's death or retirement except the share in profit in proportion to the contribution made in partnership firm.

The Court added that no formal document is required to be made for transferring the property to the partnership firm, as the transfer occurs by virtue of the partner's contribution to the firm. However, the Court said that a relinquishment deed could be made to formalise the transfer of property to the partnership firm.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where the legal heirs of one of the partners of the partnership firm claimed ownership over the Hotel (partnership property) after the death of the partner. The appellant-legal heirs attempted to claim ownership of the property, arguing that it was acquired by his father and should not have been transferred to the partnership firm.

To Claim Employment In Any Organization, Direct Master-Servant Relationship Must Be Established On Paper: Supreme Court

Case Details: Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education v. Raj Kumar Mishra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 343

The Supreme Court observed that for a person to claim employment in an organization, a direct master-servant relationship must be established on paper.

“For a person to claim employment under any organization, a direct master-servant relationship has to be established on paper. In the present case(s), admittedly, the only document, which the private respondents have in their favour, is showing that they were posted at various places doing different nature of work. This clearly in the considered opinion of the Court would not establish master-servant relationship”, the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra rejected the workman's argument that that the supervisory control of appellant on the workman establishes a master-servant relationship.

Failure To Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice Or Communicate Stand May Lead To Adverse Inference Against Government : Supreme Court

Case Details: Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 344

The Supreme Court expressed concerns about the declining significance of the notices under Section 80 CPC noting that in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities.

The Court observed that the government/public authorities must acknowledge the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) in all seriousness, and must not sit over them to force the citizens into the vagaries of litigation. It added that when a notice is sent to the government by a litigant, it serves as an opportunity for the Government or a public officer to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable.

Further, the Court stated that an adverse inference would be drawn against the government for not acknowledging the notice or informing the litigant about its stand on the issue raised in the notice.

Delivery Of Possession Not Essential To Validate Gift/Settlement; Gift Document Can't Be Unilaterally Cancelled By Donor: Supreme Court

Case Details: N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 345

The Supreme Court held that when a property transfer involves considerations such as love and affection while the donor retains a life interest, it qualifies as a settlement deed in the form of a gift. The Court further clarified that once the donee accepts the gift through the settlement deed, the donor cannot unilaterally revoke it.

The Court held that mere reservation of life interest of the donor and the postponement of the delivery of the possession to the donee would not make the document a Will.

The Court referred to the settled law that delivery of possession is not sine qua non to validate a gift or settlement. Upon the retention of the life interest, the donor will continue only as an ostensible owner of the property as per Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

"...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 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882," the Court observed.

Suppression Of Drinking Habit Justifies Rejection Of Health Insurance Claim For Alcohol-Related Hospitalisation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Life Insurance Corporation v. Sunita and others | SLP(c) 15354/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 346

The Supreme Court ruled that insurers can reject health claims related to alcoholism if the policyholder concealed alcohol drinking habit while buying the policy.

The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) to repudiate a claim over the hospitalisation of a policyholder under the "Jeevan Arogya” scheme since he gave false information regarding his habit of alcohol consumption.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was deciding an appeal filed by the LIC against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which upheld the decisions of the State and District fora to pay ₹5,21,650 and costs to the claimant.

'Woman Willingly Accompanied Accused To Hotel Room Thrice': Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man

Case Details: Jothiragawan v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Reiterating that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent, the Supreme Court on Monday (March 24) quashed a rape case against a man accused of forcible sex under the pretext of marriage.

The Court noted that the woman had accompanied the accused to a hotel room thrice, and there was no evidence of deception at the time of consent leading to an inference that there was a breach of promise to marry.

“On a reading of the statements made by the victim before the Police, both the First Information Statement and that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both the parties was without the consent of the victim. That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim's statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that after the first incident and the second incident she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the accused petition against the Madras High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR registered against him under Sections 376 and 420 IPC.

Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand Govt For Not Paying Promised Ex-Gratia For Doctor Shot Dead In Hospital, Orders ₹1 Crore Compensation

Case Details: State of Uttarakhand v. Sarita Singh and others | SLP (C) 19840-19841/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 348

The Supreme Court criticised the Uttarakhand Government for not paying ex-gratia compensation to the widow of a government doctor, who was shot dead while working in a Community Health Centre in April 2016, despite the then Chief Minister approving a decision to grant Rs 50 Lakh.

Displeased that the family of the deceased doctor has been forced to litigate for nearly nine years to get compensation, the Court directed the State to pay them Rs 1 crore.

Delay In Recording Witness Statements Under Section 161/164 CrPC Not Fatal If There Is Adequate Explanation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349

The Supreme Court held that a delay in recording an eyewitness's testimony would not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih refused to interfere with the conviction of the appellants who challenged their conviction under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The appellants raised a ground that the eyewitnesses examination was conducted after 3/4 delays of the incident. They referred to the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel v State of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 to argue that the delay caused in their examination is always fatal to the prosecution's case.

Govt Employee Transferred On Request Can't Claim Existing Seniority In New Post: Supreme Court

Case Details: Secretary To Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 350

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the transfer of a government employee upon their request cannot be classified as a transfer in public interest. It further held that an employee cannot claim seniority based on their previous position, as seniority resets upon a request-based transfer.

“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 Court observed.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard a case from the Karnataka High Court involving a Staff Nurse (appointed in 1979) who sought a cadre change to First Division Assistant (FDA) in 1985 due to medical ailments. The Medical Board confirmed her incapacity, and she agreed in writing to be placed at the bottom of the new cadre.

Motor Accident Claims | Multiplier Can't Be Reduced Because Victim Was Earning In Foreign Currency: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shyam Prasad Nagalla & Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 351

The Supreme Court held that the multiplier in motor accident claims cannot be reduced on the ground that the deceased was earning in foreign currency. The multiplier is fixed on the basis of the age of the victim and cannot be altered based on the ground of foreign income.

The Court also held that the exchange rate which was prevalent on the date of the filing of the claim petition has to be adopted.

No Presumption Of Negligence Merely Because Driver Had Only Learner's Licence: Supreme Court

Case Details: Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 352

The Supreme Court observed that driving with a learner's licence would not give rise to a presumption of contributory negligence in motor accident claims. The Court added that the compensation cannot be declined/reduced because the driver involved in the accident had only a learner's licence.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant had suffered amputation of both legs after the scooter he was riding pillion on collided with a rashly driven trailer.

When Can Relief Be Moulded In A Suit? Supreme Court Explains

Case Details: J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/S. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 353

The Supreme Court stated that if the relief sought in a suit cannot be granted, or if granting an alternative relief can expedite litigation, the Court has the authority to "mould the relief" instead of dismissing the suit.

“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.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the dispute involved the ownership of a property (Plaint Schedule) originally purchased by one Padmini Chandrasekaran in a court auction (1962). She later bequeathed it via a Will (1975) to Vinayagamurthy and his children, administered by a Trust.

Land Acquisition |Large Areas Don't Get Same Price As Small Plots; Some Deduction Permissible Due To Largeness: Supreme Court

Case Details: Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Officer On Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 354

Observing that large areas do not attract the same prices as that of smaller areas of land, the Supreme Court justified the 10% deduction in market rates of the land on account of largeness in area while determining the compensation in a land acquisition proceeding.

“It is also a settled principle of law that large areas do not attract the same price as is offered for the small plots of lands. Therefore, 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.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case where the Appellants were unsatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them for the land acquired by the Gujarat government for the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC).

S.200 CrPC/S.227 BNSS | Supreme Court Asks Magistrates To Ascertain Truth Of Complaints Before Summoning Accused

Case Details: Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 355

The Supreme Court quashed a complaint filed for the offence of cheque dishonour under the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after noting that the complainant suppressed material facts and abused the judicial process by withholding loan documents.

The Court observed that criminal law cannot be set in motion by suppressing material facts.

“While filing a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”, the Court observed.

PC Act | 'Validity Of Sanction Must Be Decided In Trial': Supreme Court Criticises HC Order Quashing Case Under S.482 CrPC

Case Details: State v. G. Easwaran

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356

The Supreme Court overturned the Madras High Court's decision, which quashed a disproportionate assets case against a bureaucrat at the pre-trial stage after noting there were "bleak conviction prospects" and "invalid sanction” to prosecute the bureaucrat.

The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra held that the High Court acted improperly by conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage and quashing the case before the actual case material were brought on record. The Court noted that the issue of conviction prospects and invalid sanction are matters to be determined during the trial.

“We are of the clear opinion that the High Court has exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”, the court said.

“This is typically the problem that would arise when the High Court seeks to interdict proceedings and quash the criminal case before the relevant material to support the case of the prosecution is brought on record. Findings regarding the legality, validity, or delay in grant of sanction were premature. Validity of the sanction is an issue that must be examined during the course of the trial.”, the court added.

No Absolute Rule That HC Cannot Interfere In S.482 CrPC Petition If Investigation Is At Preliminary Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Kulandaisamy & Anr. v. State Represented By Its Inspector of Police & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14318/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 357

The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a Section 482 CrPC petition if the investigation is at a primary stage.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was deciding a challenge to the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner under the offence of misappropriation of funds of the trust named Coimbatore Education Foundation for their personal use.

KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sajithabhai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 358

The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's ruling on a seniority dispute between Kerala Water Authority's 'directly recruited' and 'promoted' Assistant Engineers. The Court held that Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules) govern completely separate cadres. The court further held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules applies only after appointment as Assistant Engineer, and cannot be applied for lower promotions.

Consumer Protection Act | When Machine Is Used By Employees, It Can't Be Regarded As Purchase For 'Self-Employment': Supreme Court

Case Details: Virender Singh v. M/S. Darshana Trading Co. Thr. Its Prop. Sanjay Seth (Dead) & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5510/2020

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 359

The Supreme Court held that when a product is bought to be utilised in an established commercial venture by the buyer's employees and not the buyer himself, the buyer cannot be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The Court further observed that while a buyer using a product for 'self-employment' can be considered a 'consumer' under the Act, the facts of each case need to be examined.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a challenge against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld the dismissal of the consumer complaint for non-maintainability.

Homebuyer Cannot Be Forced To Accept Possession Of Flat After Long Delay, Entitled To Refund: Supreme Court

Case Details: Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (A MHADA Unit) and Others v. Manohar Burde

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 360

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that homebuyers cannot be forced to accept possession of a property after an undue delay and are entitled to a refund if the unit is not delivered within the agreed timeframe.

The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard the case which revolves around a homebuyer's right to refund when a developer fails to deliver possession of a flat within a reasonable time.

IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan

Case Details: M/S JSW Steel Limited v. Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal & Ors., Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 629 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan.

"we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the learned NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan were totally contemptuous in nature. The respondents could not have raised the said demands inasmuch as they are not part of the Resolution Plan...However, we do not propose to proceed against the respondents/contemnors inasmuch as they are entitled to benefit of doubt", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih.

The Court underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns.

'Judges Must Protect Freedom Of Speech Even If They Don't Like What Was Said': Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

Case Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over his Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” in the background.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, allowing the petition filed by Pratapgarhi, observed that no offence was made out.

In its judgment, the bench underscored the importance of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and reminded the Courts and the Police of their duty to uphold the rights of persons expressing unpopular opinions.

'Instigation Must Have Close Proximity To Suicide', Supreme Court Quashes Abetment To Suicide Case Against Business Partners

Case Details: R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Observing that 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 Supreme Court upheld the quashing of an abetment to suicide case against the business partner of the deceased, who committed suicide alleging harassment from his business partner.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the special leave petition filed by the deceased's wife challenging the Karnataka High Court's order quashing an FIR registered against Respondents 2 to 4 (accused) under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

Circle Rates For Lands Must Be Scientifically Fixed Reflecting Real Market Value, Use Experts' Services: Supreme Court To State Govts

Case Details: Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 364

The Supreme Court advised the Governments that the circle rates (minimum government-determined price at which a property can be registered during a sale or transfer) be fixed in a scientific manner, using the services of experts if needed.

"It would be advisable that the circle rates be fixed by expert committees, which not only have officers from the government but also other specialists who understand the market conditions. Methodically and scientifically fixed circle rates can contribute to strengthening the economy and boosting tax collections," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that fixing fair and accurate circle rates has a direct impact on each citizen.

'Prior Enmity Can Indicate Motive But Also Raise Possibility Of False Accusation': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 30-Year-Old Murder Case

Case Details: Aslam Alias Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365

The Supreme Court observed that when a criminal act is committed based on prior enmity with the victim, then the possibility of false accusations cannot be ruled out. Though hostility between parties can establish a motive for a crime, it also raises the possibility of false accusations driven by personal grudges.

Holding so, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih overturned a man's conviction in a 30-year-old murder case, where the prosecution claimed the appellant-accused murdered the deceased due to prior enmity. While the prosecution presented evidence of motive, the nature of the evidence raised doubts about possible false implications. Considering this uncertainty, the Court granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him.

Supreme Court Directs Customs Authorities To Upgrade Lab Facilities For Proper Testing Of Disputed Articles On All Parameters

Case Details: Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 366

The Supreme Court overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.

The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.

In this regard, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh criticized inadequate lab testing facilities, which led to the release of confiscated goods because the customs authorities tested only 8–14 out of 21 IS 1460:2005 (HSD) parameters—insufficient to classify the goods as HSD.

Therefore, the Court directed the Respondents to upgrade lab facilities within six months to ensure full IS-standard testing and prevent future disputes.

Giving Arrest Memo Not Same As Supplying Grounds Of Arrest: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest & Remand

Case Details: Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh | Criminal Appeal No. 1518 /2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 367

The Supreme Court set aside the arrest and remand for an appellant in the light of the decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024), which held that supplying grounds of arrest in writing as prescribed under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires mandatory compliance, lest the arrest and remand will stands vitiated in the eyes of the law.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal held that what was furnished to the arrestee was an arrest memo, which did not contain any worthwhile particulars, such as the charges framed against him. It only contained the name of the accused and the place of arrest and stated that he was arrested based on the statement of the co-accused.

"We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254."

Art 311 Doesn't Mean Only Appointing Authority Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Govt Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 368

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing authority is not required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee. Referring to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal, it is not required for initiating disciplinary action.

Holding so, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan allowed the State of Jharkhand's appeal, overturning the High Court's decision that had quashed the dismissal of the respondent-state employee solely due to the lack of prior separate approval from the Chief Minister for the charge sheet.

Orders

'Caste Certificate Seems To Be Big Problem In Tamil Nadu; There Appears To Be A Huge Racket': Supreme Court

Case Details: Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer v. B Pradeepa | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 27890/2019

The Supreme Court made a prima facie observation regarding the existence of a "huge racket" in the State of Tamil Nadu which was behind issuing bogus caste certificates.

The Court made this observation while dealing with a batch of cases concerning the certificates issued to thousands of persons certifying them to be belonging to the Hindu Konda Reddis Community in Tamil Nadu.

"Caste Certificate seems to be a big big problem in the State of Tamil Nadu. It appears that thousands of such certificates have been issued certifying people to be members of the Hindu Konda Reddis Community falling within the Scheduled Tribe," the Court observed.

"For the present, we do not level any allegations but prima facie it appears to be a huge racket. This is something extremely dangerous," the Court added.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan was hearing a batch of petitions in which the certificates were issued certifying several persons as members of the Hindu Konda Reddis Community, designated as a Scheduled Tribe.

The Supreme Court ordered a State Level Scrutiny Committee to inquire into the genuineness of the certificates and submit its report in order for the Court to decide these matters.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail 'On Trial Basis' To Ex-Civil Servants In Chhattisgarh Coal Levy Scam Case

Case Details: Ranu Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh | SLP(Crl) No. 015941 - / 2024 and connected matters.

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to ex-civil servants Saumya Chaurasia, Ranu Sahu and other accused persons in the Chhattisgarh Coal Levy Scam Case.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing the challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated November 4, 2024, which dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners.

The Court granted interim bail in order to maintain an equilibrium between the petitioners' personal liberty and the investigating agency's efficient administration.

India's Got Latent Row | Supreme Court Allows Ranveer Allahabadia To Resume His Show In A Manner Which All Age Groups Can Watch

Case Details: Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 83/2025

The Supreme Court lifted the restriction imposed on YouTuber & Podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia on airing shows.

The Court allowed him to resume his show "The Ranveer Show" subject to furnishing an undertaking that his own shows will maintain the standards of decency and morality, so that viewers of any age group can watch.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also ordered that his shows should not comment upon the proceedings which are sub-judice before the Court.

During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant seemingly expressed disapproval of articles decrying the criminal action against Allahabadia and defending his freedom of speech and expression.

'Approach HC': Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Contempt Petition Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused Persons' Houses In Gujarat

Case Details: Mujahid Nafees v. Pankaj Joshi and Ors., Diary No. 6547-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition assailing demolition action stated to have been carried out by Ahmedabad authorities against houses of persons accused of crimes in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, asking the petitioner, who claimed that the authorities were guilty of contempt of Court, to approach the Gujarat High Court for relief.

Supreme Court Directs Delhi HC & District Bar Assns To Not Defer Elections Beyond Mar 21; Asks NGT Bar Assn To Conclude Elections By Mar 31

Case Details: D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024

The Supreme Court ordered that the Delhi High Court and District Bar Association elections, which are scheduled to be held on March 21, shall be held on the scheduled date and not be deferred any further.

The Court further directed that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bar Association shall hold and conclude its elections by 31 March, 2025.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order

Supreme Court Castigates Lawyer For Threatening Suicide If Adverse Order Was Passed, Seeks Written Apology

The Supreme Court warned a lawyer for threatening to commit suicide during a hearing on his petition seeking to quash a criminal complaint against him filed by another lawyer.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed shock at the lawyer's conduct and recorded its disapproval of the lawyer's conduct, stating,

“Today in the morning when the petition was called out, the first petitioner who is member of the Bar appeared through VC and stated that while quashing the offence against him, if the court quashes the FIR registered by him against the second respondent, he will commit suicide. We are shocked to record such conduct on part of member of the Bar.”

The bench asked the petitioner to submit a written apology along with an undertaking not to repeat such conduct in the future.

“Now in the afternoon, the first petitioner appears and apologizes. However, we expect the first petitioner to tender written apology and undertaking not to repeat such submissions. We are not forcing the first petitioner to tender apology in writing and give assurance as stated above, but we make it clear that on his failure to do so necessary consequences in terms of law will follow”, the Court stated.

Supreme Court Stays Recruitment Process Of Judicial Magistrates In Gujarat Without Minimum Practice Condition

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

The Supreme Court today(March 3) stayed the recruitment process of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC), Civil Judge-Junior Division, in Gujarat. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the Gujarat High Court allowing the recruitment process to proceed without any requirement of minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer. It pertains to recruitment through an advertisement issued on January 30.

The advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission did not prescribe that the candidate should have any qualification of minimum number of years of practice as an advocate. The Supreme Court said that it has reserved judgment on the issue whether freshers should be permitted to apply for entry level posts in judicial service. That being so, the High Court should not have allowed the recruitment, when the Supreme Court is seized of the issue, observed a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Plea To Regulate Private Hospitals' Medicine Charges: Supreme Court Leaves Issue For States' Policy Decision

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No.337/ 2018

Supreme Court Asks Akali Leader Bikram Singh Majithia To Appear Before Punjab Police For Investigation In Drugs Case

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Bikram Singh Majithia | SLP(Crl) No. 3650/2023

The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia to appear before the Punjab Police on March 17 for interrogation in a drugs case.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the Punjab Police against the order of the High Court granting regular bail to Majithia.

"The authorities may interrogate on these issues and complete the investigation. He will continue to appear on the date as and when required," the Court ordered.

“How Will Jaipur Become A Smart City By Destroying Jal Mahal?” Supreme Court Criticizes Municipal Body

Case Details: Nagar Nigam Heritage Jaipur & Anr. v. Rajendra Tiwari & Ors.

The Supreme Court criticized the Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage) for allowing pollution in Jal Mahal Lake, questioning how the city can aspire to be a Smart City while destroying the water body.

“Today we see the Commissioner appearing online with the name board of Smart City behind him. We wonder how the city of Jaipur will become a Smart City by destroying Jal Mahal lake”, the Court remarked.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval, noting that untreated sewage and rainwater from the municipal corporation's headquarters were being discharged into the lake. The court also noted that the corporation had expanded sewage lines into natural drains flowing from the forest into the lake, further damaging its ecosystem.

The court directed the municipal corporation to appoint the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) within a week to prepare a detailed report on immediate pollution control measures and long-term strategies for the lake's preservation.

'Can't Be “Operation Successful-Patient Dead” Case': Supreme Court Issues Notice To Telangana Speaker Over Delay In Plea To Disqualify BRS MLAs

Case Details: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Ors., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025

In Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs' pleas against Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions in respect of party MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress, the Supreme Court questioned the impact of long pendency of disqualification petitions on democratic principles.

"Every matter can't be operation successful, patient dead...reasonable period (for deciding disqualification pleas) should be end of the term!? In a democracy, this process should go on endlessly till the end of the term? What happens to democratic principles then?", remarked Justice BR Gavai, in the backdrop of Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions.

"People are not interested only in getting the law decided, they are interested in how the decision affects [them]", the judge added.

The observations came after BRS and its MLAs pointed out that the disqualification petitions against its MLAs (who defected to Congress) have been pending since more than 6 months, but nothing has happened.

States' Failure To Develop Medical Infrastructure Facilitated Growth Of Private Hospitals: Supreme Court

Case Details: Siddharth Dalmia and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No.337/ 2018

In a PIL raising the issue of private hospitals' alleged compulsion of patients to buy medicines etc. from only the hospital-recommended pharmacies, the Supreme Court deprecated states across the country over their failure to provide adequate health infrastructure.

This failure, the Court said, has led to the setting up of private hospitals (albeit renowned and specialized) to cater to the needs of all kind of patients.

"...in proportion to the population of this country, the states have not been able to develop the requisite medical infrastructure to cater the needs of all kinds of patients. The states have therefore facilitated and promoted private entities to come forward in the medical field, as a result of which, numerous renowned private hospitals, well known for their specialties, and which are no less than any hospital [all over] the globe, have been setup through the country...Not only the people, even the state also look for these private entities to provide basic and specialized medical facilities to the public at large", observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

'Institutional Lacunae Undermines Climate Action, Coordinated Effort Of Various Ministries Needed': Supreme Court

Case Details: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India | Civil Appeal No(s). 388/2021

Various Ministries overseeing environmental issues appear to be working in "silos", observed the Supreme Court, while expressing a concern that "institutional lacuna undermines comprehensive climate action and engenders accountability deficit."

The Court also observed that a reassessment of existing statutes, such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and other similar legislations is necessary with a view to incorporate climate-centric enforceable mandates.

The Court further said that various regulatory bodies, such as the Pollution Control Boards, often grapple with fiscal constraints.

The bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra made these significant observations while hearing a PIL filed by child-activist, Ridhima Pandey on the issue of carbon emissions and their impact on the environment.

Considering the significance of coordinated efforts for measures against increased carbon emissions, the Supreme Court sought responses from eight major Union Ministries related to environment policies.

'Will Hold Chief Secretaries Personally Liable': Supreme Court Warns States/UTs Which Haven't Formed Expert Committees To Identify Forest Areas

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd) and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1164/2023

The Supreme Court came down heavily on States/Union Territories for not complying with its earlier directions to constitute expert committees for the identification of forest areas.

If the non-compliant States fail to constitute the Expert Committees within one month and carry out the exercise in terms of Rule 16(1) of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 within six months, the Chief Secretaries and Administrators of the States/UTs shall be held personally accountable, the Court said.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order.

'No Reason Recorded': Supreme Court Sets Aside BCI Order Dismissing Complaint Against Law Firm, Directs Reconsideration

Case Details: Sailesh Bhansali v. Alok Dhir and others | Civil Appeal Diary No. 36274/2024

The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bar Council of India dismissing a revision petition filed by a litigant alleging professional misconduct by Advocates Alok Dhir and Maneesha Dhir, partners of law firm Dhir & Dhir Associates.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan noted that without recording "any reason at all", the BCI rejected the revision petition filed against the order passed by the Bar Council of Delhi which dismissed the complaint.

Even if an order of affirmation does not require elaborate reasons, it cannot be that no reason at all need be recorded, the Court said.

Supreme Court Slams Punjab Govt For Disowning Undertaking Given By Addl Advocate General, Hauls Up Chief Secretary

Case Details: Rajnish Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Punjab for attempting to distance itself from an undertaking given by its Additional Advocate General in 2002 assuring the Court that the state will implement the Punjab Privately Managed Affiliated and Punjab Government Aided Colleges Pensionary Benefits Scheme, 1986. The state had claimed that the undertaking was by the officer and not by the State Government.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh issued notice to Chief Secretary KAP Sinha, asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the breach of the undertaking given to the High Court.

CAMPA Funds Diverted To Buy iPhones, Laptops In Uttarakhand, Reports CAG; Supreme Court Seeks State Chief Secretary's Affidavit

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

Taking serious view of alleged misutilization of CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) funds, which are meant for improving the green cover across the country, the Supreme Court called on the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand to explain why said funds were utilized for inadmissible purposes (including purchase of iPhones, laptops, etc.).

"The CAMPA fund is to be utilized for increasing the green cover. Utilization of the same for non-admissible activities and not depositing the interest as per the Act with the SCAF is a matter of serious concern. We therefore direct the Chief Secretary of the State to file an affidavit on these aspects by the next date", the Court said.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, taking note of a news report brought to its notice by Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar, as per which a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) had revealed that Uttarakhand forest authorities diverted funds meant for compensatory afforestation to the purchase of iPhones, laptops, fridges and coolers; renovation of buildings; court cases, etc.

'How State Government & Its Department Can Engage Two Separate Advocates?' Supreme Court Questions Delhi Government

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India

Expressing shock over the forest department's lawyer, the Court stated how two different advocates can appear for the same government.

In this regard, the Court directed “the Registry to immediately communicate this order to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Delhi who shall personally ensure that compliance is made with our order dated 17th January, 2025 within a maximum period of three weeks from today.”

Expressing shock over the forest department's lawyer, the Court stated how two different advocates can appear for the same government.

Further, the bench clarified that “if compliance is not made within the time stipulated, an action under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 will be initiated against the concerned officers of the Government of Delhi.”

Supreme Court Directs States To Immediately Pay Salaries And Perquisites To Consumer Forum Members As Per Existing Rules

Case Details: In Re Pay Allowance of Members of UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to immediately pay the salary and perquisites of the Chairpersons and Members of the State and District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commissions as per existing Rules.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh passed this order while hearing a batch of cases related to the salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members. The Court noted the grievance of some petitioners that in some states, the salary and perquisites of Consumer Forum members were not being paid even as per the prevailing Rules.

Supreme Court Orders Tree Census In Taj Trapezium Zone, Directs Forest Research Institute To Conduct Survey

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court ordered a tree census in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to ensure the effective implementation of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh directed the TTZ authority to appoint the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to conduct a survey of all existing trees in the area.

The court emphasized that the 1976 Act is meant to protect trees, and its provisions—such as requiring permission before felling and imposing penalties for violations—can only be enforced if there is an accurate record of existing trees.

Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Decision That Chargers Sold With Cell Phones Cannot Be Taxed Separately Under UP VAT Act 2008

Case Details: Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. M/S Samsung (India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. | Diary No. - 20066/2021

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.

Supreme Court Bars Registration Of Further Cases Against TN Dy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin Over 'Sanatana Dharma' Remarks Without Its Permission

Case Details: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024

The Supreme Court directed that no further FIRs/complaints should be registered against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin without its permission in relation to his remarks against 'Sanatan Dharma'.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea by Stalin for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Hajj Airfare From Kerala, Asks Ministry To Explain Why Charges From Calicut Are Higher

Case Details: Abdussalam and Ors. v. Hajj Committee of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 190/2025

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking rationalization of airfare structure across Kerala for the 2025 Hajj, saying it would not be prudent for the Court to express any opinion in that regard.

The Court was of the view that the fixation of airfare was relatable to viability of airlines and involved a commercial policy decision, interfering with which could cause immense harm to travelers, in the event the airlines refused to operate at agreed rates.

'Burger King' Trademark Dispute: Supreme Court Gives Interim Relief To Pune Burger King, Stays HC's Restraint Order

Case Details: Anahita Irani v. Burger King | SLP(C) 6282/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Bombay High Court which restrained Pune's iconic Burger King from using the trademark 'Burger King'.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the proprietors of the Pune eatery against the High Court's order.

The case relates to the trademark dispute between the United States food giant 'Burger King' and the Pune-based eatery.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To UP MLA Abbas Ansari In Gangsters Act Case

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

The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari in a criminal case registered against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh has imposed stringent bail conditions while giving interim relief to Ansari, including that he cannot leave Uttar Pradesh without prior permission of the Special Judge, Trial Court. He is directed to stay at his official residence in Lucknow and if he intends to travel to his constituency in Mau, prior permission from the Trial Court and district police will be required. The Court has also directed Ansari to not make any public statement in respect of the sub-judice cases.

The matter is now listed after six weeks and the Court has asked for a status report on the progress of the trial.

Supreme Court Flags Delay In Amending Calcutta High Court Rule Requiring Division Bench Instead Of Single Judge For Certain Bail Cases

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

The Supreme Court raised concerns over the delay in amending the Calcutta High Court Rules on the aspect of the strength of the bench hearing bail applications, pointing out that the proposal to amend the Rule has been pending for 12 years.

The issue relates to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the Full Court had on February 20, 2025, decided to amend the Rule, it had only referred the matter to the Rule Committee for drafting the amendment instead of directly implementing the change.

Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Excise Official, But Defers His Release Till April 10

Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court has granted bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Special Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Excise Department, in a cheating and corruption case linked to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, the Court directed that he shall be released on April 10, 2025, to ensure that the ongoing investigation is not affected.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Tripathi has been in custody for approximately 11 months and observed that there is no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future. The Court considered the state's contention that the investigation is still ongoing and, therefore, granted time until April 10 for his release.

Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Delhi Home Secretary Over False Statement On Placing SRB Recommendations Before LG

Case Details: Mohd. Arif v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court summoned the Home Department Secretary of the Delhi Government seeking an explanation and calling upon him to show cause why contempt action should not be initiated for the State Government's “completely false” claim that the recommendations of the Sentence Review Board(SRB) in a remission matter were placed before the Lieutenant Governor.

A bench or Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took on record an affidavit filed by Prem Singh Meena, Superintendent Prison, PHQ-II, Prison Headquarters, Tihar which revealed that the Sentence Review Board, in its meeting held on 10th December, 2024, could not arrive at a decision.

“The affidavit does not say that the decision of the Sentence Review Board was placed before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, the statement made by the State Government which is recorded in order dated 7th February, 2025 is completely false. Issue notice to the Secretary of the Home Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi calling upon him to show cause why appropriate action including the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall not be initiated against him”, the Court observed.

Resolve Issue Of Rental Accommodation Of CRPF Personnel Posted In Delhi: Supreme Court Tells Union Govt

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. AC/M Jitendra Narayan Sinha & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2848/2020

The Supreme Court directed the Union to resolve the issue of rental accommodation for CRPF Personnel stationed temporarily in Delhi within a reasonable time. The Court specified that unless the same is not done, it would necessarily issue directions under Article 142 Jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a plea relating to the issue of providing rental accommodation to CRPF personnel in Delhi under the HRA paid to them.

The present case is the Union's challenge to the order of the Delhi High Court which had quashed the CRPF orders dated 17th February, 2005 and 28th April, 2017 making only those working in the HQs to be eligible for allotment of GPRA (General Pool Residential Accommodation). Here nine CRPF officers had moved the Court challenging the said orders by way of a writ petition.

The Supreme Court framed the issue as follows:

"Whether CRPF personnel who are posted here in Delhi for a limited duration of 2-3 years will be in position to get a reasonable accommodation on rental basis within the limits of HRA which is being paid to them."

Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Former Gujarat IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma In 2023 Illegal Land Allotment Case

Case Details: Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr | SLP(Crl) No. 6185/2023

The Supreme Court today(Monday) rejected bail to retired IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma in connection to a 2023 illegal land allotment case lodged at Bhuj in Kutch.

Sharma is accused of corruption and criminal breach of trust for alleged illegal allotment of government land for monetary benefits as the then-collector of Kutch district. The FIR against him was lodged in 2023 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR registered with the CID Crime Boarder Zone Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 217, 120B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order:

"We find no good reason to interfere with the order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."

"Why Touchy About Comments On Court Proceedings?" Supreme Court On Delhi HC Order To Remove Wikipedia Page On ANI's Defamation Suit

Case Details: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited

The Supreme Court (March 17) issued notice on a petition filed by Wikimedia Foundation against an order passed by the Delhi High Court directing the removal of a Wikipedia page and discussions related to ongoing defamation proceedings initiated by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikipedia.

During the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed concerns about the High Court's direction and the observation that the content amounted to interference with ongoing court proceedings.

"We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order," the bench observed while issuing notice to the ANI, returnable on April 4.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From Collector On Recovery Of Rs 1 Lakh Cost Imposed On Lawyer For Frivolous Petition

Case Details: Ashok Pandey v. Speaker of Lok Sabha and Ors | MA 479/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 1202/2023

The Supreme Court today(Monday) sought a report from the Collector as to why the cost imposed on Lucknow-based lawyer for filing a frivolous petition, challenging the restoration of Nationalist Congress Party Leader Mohammed Faizal's Lok Sabha membership, not been recovered as arrears of land revenue.

On October 20, 2023, the petitioner, Advocate Ashok Pandey, had filed a petition contending that once a Member of Parliament (MP) loses their office by due to conviction in a criminal case, they will continue to be disqualified until their acquittal by a higher court.

A bench of Justices B.R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra had dismissed this public interest litigation (PIL) petition, observing that the petition was nothing but an "abuse of process of law" as none of the fundamental rights of the petitioner are violated, so as to enable him to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Manipur Violence| Supreme Court Extends Tenure Of Justice Gita Mittal Committee Till July 31

Case Details: Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei and Ors. | Diary No. - 19206/2023

The Supreme Court (March 17) extended the tenure of Justice Gita Mittal Committee till July 31. The Committee is presently handling several humanitarian aspects of the ethnic violence in Manipur.

The Court also clarified that the sexual violence cases being handled by the CBI which were transferred to Assam for pre-trial steps would undergo trial in Guwahati Courts itself.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi passed the following order:

"The Committee headed by Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is extended till 31st July, 2025"

“Unless There Is A Threat Of Contempt, You Never Decide Remission Case”: Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice To Delhi Home Secretary

Case Details: Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan v. State of (NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home Department, Delhi Government, for failing to take a decision on granting remission to Sukhdev Singh, a convict in the Nitish Katara murder case, despite giving an undertaking to the court.

The court, in its order, noted, “A solemn statement on instructions of the state government was recorded in the order. Now we are informed that the SRB is to consider the case of the petitioner today. The state government has not shown elementary courtesy of even making an explanation application for grant of extension of time. We therefore issue notice to the Principal Secretary of the Home Department of Delhi government calling upon him to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him. Notice of contempt is made returnable on 28th of March. We direct the Secretary to remain present through VC.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed displeasure over the delay, pointing out that the Delhi Government regularly delays such matters.

Supreme Court Stays CBI Investigation Against Ex-Tamil Nadu Minister KT Rajenthra Bhalaji In Corruption Case

Case Details: K.T. Rajenthrabhalaji v. State | D No. 9403/2025

The Supreme Court today(Monday) passed an interim order restraining the Central Bureau of Investigation from conducting investigation into the allegations against former AIADMK Minister K.T. Rajenthra Bhalaji in a cash-for-job scam case.

On January 6, the Madras High Court directed CBI's probe after it found that the Tamil Nadu Government had not complied with the Court's earlier order passed in November last year, directing the State police to file a chargesheet in this matter.

Before a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N Bhatti, two special leave petitions challenging the order was heard.

Supreme Court Grants 3 Months' Time To Union To Furnish Steps Taken For Delimitation In Northeastern States

Case Details: Delimitation Demand Committee for State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur & Nagaland in North East India v. Union of India | Diary No. 12880 of 2022

The Supreme Court (March 17) granted 3 months' time to the Union of India to furnish the steps taken to carry out the delimitation exercise in the North Eastern states, particularly Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, after a Presidential order of 2020 rescinded the deferment of their delimitation.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition seeking delimitation in four north-eastern states of India, namely, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.

RG Kar Case | Supreme Court Allows Victim's Parents To Pursue Plea In Calcutta HC For Probe Into Alleged Cover-Up

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

The Supreme Court (March 17) permitted the Calcutta High Court to proceed to hear a pending writ petition filed by the parents of the victim in the RG Kar Rape- Murder Incident seeking further investigation against ex-Principal of the College, Sandip Ghosh, in his involvement in the alleged cover-up of the crime.

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

Supreme Court Stays Kerala HC Order Barring Temples Not Registered With District Committees From Parading Elephants

Case Details: Vishwa Gaja Seva Samithi v. Union of India and Ors. | Diary No. 10227-2025

The Supreme Court stayed the interim order of the Kerala High Court that temples and devaswoms which have not registered with the District Committees before the cut-off date of 31.05.2022 cannot be permitted to parade elephants at festivals.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the stay order while issuing notice on a petition filed by an organisation 'Vishwa Gaja Seva Samithi' challenging the High Court's order passed on January 13.

Civil Judges' Recruitment: Gujarat & Karnataka HCs Suspend Selection Process To Await Supreme Court Judgment On Minimum Practice Condition

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

In the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court was informed on behalf of Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts that the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been kept in abeyance given the fact that the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether a condition of minimum practice as a lawyer must be prescribed to apply for the post.

The matter was before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which disposed of the listed interlocutory application in view of a statement made by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj that since the Court's judgment is reserved, relevant notifications have been issued and the recruitment process will not proceed.

New CEC Open To Address Concerns On Voter Turnout Data, Says Election Commission; Supreme Court Asks Petitioners To Submit Representations

Case Details: MAHUA MOITRA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 1389/2019

The new Chief Election Commissioner is ready to listen to the concerns raised over the publication of voter turnout data and Form 17C(which records the number of votes polled in a booth), the Election Commission of India informed the Supreme Court today.

The ECI told the Court that the petitioners may submit their representations, raising their concerns and giving their suggestions. Recording this submission, the Court asked the petitioners to give their representations to the ECI within 10 days.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of pleas seeking the uploading of Form 17C data on the ECI website and the publication of booth-wise voter turnout data.

While the court assured the petitioners that the matter would be listed further for hearing, it advised the petitioners to presently raise their concerns which the new CEC.

Refund Of School Fees Charged During COVID: Supreme Court Forms Committee To Assess Financial Status Of Private Schools In UP

Case Details: Independent School Federation of India v. Adarsh Bhushan | SLP(C) No. 011388 - / 2023

The Supreme Court (March 18) constituted a two-member committee led by Justice(Retired) GP Mittal to examine the financial status of private schools which challenged the Allahabad High Court's direction to adjust/refund 15% of excess fees charged during the pandemic period.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court order which directed private schools to either adjust or reimburse 15% of fees paid by parents for the Covid-struck period of 2020-2021. The present challenge has been made by a batch of around 17 private schools.

Supreme Court Flags 'Horrendous' Translations, Says AoRs Must Act Responsibly; Conveys Concerns To SCAORA President

Case Details: Chairman Managing Committee & Anr. v. Bhaveshkumar Manubhai Parakhia & Ors.

While hearing a matter pertaining to the employment of a teacher, the Supreme Court orally took a strong critical stand against the incorrect and mistranslated documents filed before it. It also called for the presence of Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) in the Court and questioned who should be responsible for the incorrect translations because Advocates on Record (AOR) are supposed to certify the documents submitted in the Court.

No Blanket Nod To Establishment Or Expansion Of MSMEs In Taj Trapezium Zone Without Pollution Check: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court refused to grant blanket permission for the establishment or expansion of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without assessing their potential for pollution.

The Court observed in its order, “Unless TTZ Authority makes out a case for granting approval to a particular industry, such blanket prayer cannot be considered. Unless the Court is made aware whether the industry sought to be created is likely to create pollution, we cannot grant blanket permission.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that such permissions cannot be granted without specific information about the industries involved.

Supreme Court Asks Greater Noida Authority To Cooperate With Cheated Homebuyers In Reviving Dead Housing Project

Case Details: Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9792/2017

The Supreme Court today(Tuesday) directed the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to cooperate with homebuyers in reviving a housing project which was abandoned by the builder.

The Court asked the Authority to provide the details of the demand which the Authority would have raised in case the original builders had completed the project so thatthe proportional charges of each of the home buyers can be decided depending upon the size of the apartments they are taking.

The project got abandoned after the Cooperative Housing Society, which took the plot on lease from the Authority, failed to pay the lease dues despite taking money from home buyers.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the Court is not happy that the Authority is not cooperating to revive the dead project.

Uttarakhand Govt Explains 'Misutilization' Of CAMPA Funds; Supreme Court Closes Issue Finding Deviations To Be 'Trivial'

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995

Pursuant to Supreme Court's rap regarding misutilization of CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) funds, the Uttarakhand government explained that majority of the subject expenses were directly or indirectly related to purposes permissible under the relevant Rules.

In the few instances where irregularities were found, the state government conveyed that departmental proceedings were initiated prior to the Supreme Court taking note of the issue and appropriate action is contemplated.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and decided to not go further into the issue, after hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Uttarakhand government), who answered the challenge to Uttarakhand's utilization of CAMPA funds.

'Need Clear Answers, To Whom Contracts Were Awarded': Supreme Court To Arunachal Pradesh Govt & Union On Allegations Against Arunachal CM

Case Details: Save Mon Region Federation and Anr v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 54/2024 PIL-W

While hearing a plea for SIT probe into alleged irregular tender allotments in Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court on March 18 sought detailed responses from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Finance Ministry and the state government on the parties that awarded public work tenders within the state.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a PIL seeking directions for SIT probe into the alleged irregular allotment of public contracts to the companies owned by relatives of the incumbent Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Pema Khandu.

Supreme Court Seeks Report From NEERI On Laying Down Of Paver Blocks In Matheran; Assures That It Won't Allow 'Motorization' Of The Hill Town

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

While dealing with the issue of laying down of paver blocks in Matheran, Maharashtra, the Supreme Court called for a report from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on aspects including the necessity of installing paver blocks, the preferred nature of paver blocks (clay/concrete), etc.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, being of the view that NEERI is the most prestigious body in the field of environmental sciences. It further directed State of Maharashtra to make necessary arrangements for inspection by NEERI experts and to provide necessary assistance to enable them to submit a report.

Supreme Court Asks Odisha Govt To Decide Premature Release Plea Of Convict In Graham Staines Murder Case Within 6 Weeks

Case Details: Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. State of Odisha | Diary No. 11407-2024

The Supreme Court (March 19) asked the State of Odisha to take a decision on the plea for premature release of Dara Singh who is serving life sentence for the murder of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons in 1999.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by Singh seeking remission of his sentence. He stated that he has served more than 24 years in imprisonment.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection From Eviction To Over 19000 Maharashtra Street Vendors

Case Details: Maharashtra Pheriwala Kranti Mahasangh v. Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors., SLP(C) No. 5144/2023

The Supreme Court granted interim protection from eviction to 19000 odd street vendors in Pimpri-Chinchwad near Pune in Maharashtra.

The Court said that until the exercise of identifying/notifying the hawking and non-hawking zones is contemplated in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, status quo be maintained and the hawkers not be evicted from their place of vending.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, stating,

"The exercise to accommodate the 19792 street-vendors or 14000 and odd street-vendors, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, is continuing. Until the exercise is completed, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to possession and functioning of the street-vendors."

'BCI Has No Business Interfering With Legal Education': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against HC Allowing 2 Convicts To Attend Law School Virtually

Case Details: Bar Council of India v. State of Kerala and Ors., Diary No. 11532/2025

While dismissing Bar Council of India's challenge to a Kerala High Court order which allowed 2 murder convicts to attend law classes virtually, the Supreme Court orally observed that BCI has no business interfering with matters of legal education and should leave the same to jurists and legal academicians.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and dismissed the petition, leaving however the question of law open.

13 Bangladeshi Nationals Deported; Verification Ongoing For Others: Assam Govt Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.

The Supreme Court was informed (March 21) that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals detained in Assam's Matia transit camp have been deported.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recorded this statement from Assam's affidavit in a case concerning the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam.

“It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure 'B' that out of the list which is referred in our order dated 4th February, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order.

After Supreme Court's Criticism, Calcutta High Court Amends Rule On Listing Bail Applications Before Division Bench

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

The Supreme Court was informed by the Calcutta High Court that it has amended its Appellate Side Rules to allow single judges to hear most bail applications. The amendment to Rule 9(2)(ii) of Chapter II will come into effect from April 1, 2025.

Rule 9(2)(ii) reads thus, “All bail applications at the pre-conviction stage, anticipatory bail applications, cancellation of bail applications unless otherwise prescribed by statute; shall be heard by a Single Judge.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had earlier raised concerns regarding the High Court's practice of assigning bail applications to division benches, while other High Courts followed the practice of single judges hearing such matters. Following the Supreme Court's observations, the Calcutta High Court amended its Rules.

Telangana Phone Tapping Case: Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Media Outlet MD, Asks Him To Cooperate With Investigation

Case Details: Aruvela Shravan Kumar Rao v. State of Telangana | SLP(Crl) No. 3627/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim protection against arrest to Aruvela Shravan Kumar, Managing Director of a Telugu media outlet, to allow him to travel from the United States to India for the purpose of investigation. Kumar is one of the accused in the illegal phone-tapping operation conducted during the reign of the BRS Government, allegedly against bureaucrats and High Court judges.

Last year, the Telangana High Court initiated suo moto proceedings into the illegal phone-tapping operation. It had taken up the matter stating that the issue involved "national security" and not just infringement of right to privacy.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition against the Telangana High Court's order denying anticipatory bail to Kumar through an order passed in March. The Court will hear the matter on April 28.

Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Asks Witness To Approach Police With Complaint Of Intimidation

Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022

In the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case, the Supreme Court granted liberty to a prosecution eye-witness, who was allegedly sought to be influenced against testifying, to file a complaint with the police authorities. The complaint shall be investigated "dispassionately and uninfluenced by the conclusions drawn earlier by the police in its status report", the Court said.

At the same time, the Court permitted accused-Ashish Mishra, son of ex-Union Minister Ajay Kumar Mishra, to visit his hometown-Lakhimpur Kheri between 5th to 7th April to be with his family on the Ram Navami festival. The permission was made subject to conditions already imposed on Mishra (as part of the bail order) as well as certain additional conditions.

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Against Allahabad HC Ruling That Grabbing Breasts & Breaking Pyjama String Wasn't Attempt To Rape

Case Details: Anjale Patel v. Union of India and Ors. | Diary No. 15118-2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Allahabad High Court's order which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of rape or an attempt to rape.

The writ petition was filed by a party, who is a stranger to the criminal proceedings. To challenge an order of a High Court, a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 has to be filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held in many judgments that writ petition filed under Article 32 is not maintainable against a judgment of the High Court.

Supreme Court Dismisses Bharath Hindu Munnani's Plea For Protest Over Thiruparakundram Hill Row

Case Details: S. Yuvaraj v. Commissioner of Police and Anr | SLP(Crl) No. 3852/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharath Hindu Munnani seeking permission for a protest procession at Thiruparakundram, Madurai.

This SLP was filed against the order of the Madras High Court which had dismissed their plea for procession stating that the State could not permit any form of protest which disrupted the public peace and harmony.

Supreme Court Criticizes Senthil Balaji's Counsel For Taking “Technical Defence” Of Lack Of Formal Notice In Bail Recall Plea

Case Details: K. Vidhya Kumar v. Deputy Director and Anr.

The Supreme Court on Monday criticized Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's counsel for taking a “technical defence” that a formal notice has not been issued to Balaji in the plea seeking recall of the court's order granting him bail in a money laundering case related to the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

A special bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, which passed the bail order, expressed its displeasure over this conduct and noted that the court had been “taken for a ride.”

Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer Plus 30% EC/Councilor Posts For Women Lawyers In All Karnataka District Bar Associations

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

The Supreme Court reserved the post of Treasurer and 30% of the Executive Committee/Governing Council posts for women lawyers across all district bar associations in the State of Karnataka.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, after a prayer was made that the order reserving posts for women lawyers in the case of Advocates' Association Bengaluru may be extended to all district bar associations in the state.

Commenting that the Court "wants this movement to spread all over India", Justice Kant dictated thus:

"We accordingly direct that the directions contained in our order dated 28.01.2025 in respect of Advocates' Association Bengaluru, shall apply mutatis mutandis in the matter of elections of the district bar associations in the entire state of Karnataka. All the district bar associations are accordingly directed to earmark the post of Treasurer exclusively for women candidates and reserve 30% post of Councilors/members of Executive Committee exclusively for women candidates as was directed in the case of Advocates' Association Bengaluru."

Supreme Court Recalls 2019 Order Allowing Tree Felling Without Court's Permission In Taj Trapezium Zone

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court has recalled its December 2019 order that had removed the requirement of obtaining prior permission to cut trees on non-forest and private lands within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while dealing with an application seeking exemption from the need for tree-cutting permission for agro-forestry activities.

Supreme Court To Consider Constitutionality Of Maharashtra Amendment Reducing Number Of Co-Operative Society Directors

Case Details: Sunil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Supreme Court issued notice in a plea challenging an amendment to the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 reducing the maximum number of directors in a Co-operative Society from 36 to 21.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice for the limited issue of whether the amendment is legally sustainable.

“Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, let notice be issued limited to the issue as to whether the ground for amendment which has been brought about by the Maharashtra State Legislature with regard to reducing the number of Directors in a Co-operative Society from 36 to 21 is legally sustainable”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Warns Haryana Govt For Not Cooperating With Committee Enquiring Alleged Social Boycott Of Dalits

Case Details: Jai Bhagwan and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors | W.P.(Crl.) No. 293/2019

The Supreme Court warned the State of Haryana that it would initiate contempt proceedings if the State continued its non-cooperation with the Court appointed Committee to investigate the alleged social boycott of the Dalits in village Bhatia, Haryana.

In this case, the petitioners, all from the Dalit community, approached the Supreme Court alleging a social boycott imposed on them in 2017 in village Bhatia, Tehsil Hansi, district Hissar. It is stated that an issue arose when a group of Dalit boys were assaulted by the dominant community over the use of a local hand pump used for drawing water.

'Insensitivity': Supreme Court Stays Allahabad HC Ruling That Grabbing Breasts & Breaking Pyjama Strings Of Minor Girl Wasn't 'Attempt To Rape'

Case Details: In Re: Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By The High Court of Judicature At Allahabad In Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and Ancillary Issues | SMW(Crl) No. 1/2025

The Supreme Court stayed the controversial order of the Allahabad High Court which held that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl, breaking the string of her pyjama and trying to drag her beneath a culvert would not come under the offence of attempt to rape. The High Court had observed that the acts would prima facie constitute the offence of 'aggravated sexual assault' under the POCSO Act, which carries a lesser punishment.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice AG Masih, considering a suo motu case initiated against the High Court's order which created a lot of public outrage, expressed its strong disagreement with the High Court's view. The bench observed that the High Court's order was "shocking."

"We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned judgment, particularly paras 21, 24, and 26, depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment" the bench observed in the order.

Supreme Court Orders Interim Release Of Elderly Woman Confined At Assam Foreigner Detention Centre For Over A Year

Case Details: Anowara Khatoon @ Anowara Khatun v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 29968-29969/2024

In relief to an elderly woman declared 'foreigner' and detained at an Assam detention centre, the Supreme Court passed orders for release as an interim measure, noting that the woman had already spent 1 year and 4 months in detention and prima facie, she was not able to appear before the Foreigners' Tribunal to make out her case.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order without going into the merits of the matter.

"Prima facie, it appears on plain reading of the judgment that for some reason or the other, the appellant was not able to appear before the Foreigner's Tribunal and make good her case that she is not a foreigner but arrived in India within the time period stipulated under Section 6 (A) of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1955", it observed.

Misleading Medical Ads | Supreme Court Directs States To Appoint Officers To Enforce Drugs & Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act

Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India

The Supreme Court passed a slew of directions to state governments for the effective implementation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (DMR Act), which prohibits the publication of misleading advertisements regarding medical cures.

The Court lamented the poor implementation of the Act, which was enacted seventy years ago.

"The 1954 act is more than 70 years old. Unfortunately, there is no implementation in its letter and spirit. It is necessary for the state governments to create machinery for implementation of the 1954 Act."

The State Governments were directed to appoint gazetted officers who are authorised to exercise powers under Section 8 of the DMR Act for search, seizure etc. Directions were also issued to set up grievance redressal mechanisms where the general public can lodge complaints against such advertisements.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions in a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association.

Supreme Court Asks Members Of MP District Bar Association To File Unconditional Apology For Lawyers' Strike

Case Details: Ravi Kumar Golhani v. Chairman, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Diary No.- 14523 - 2024

The Supreme Court (March 26) directed the senior members of the Seoni District Bar Association in Madhya Pradesh to file an unconditional apology for calling for a lawyers' strike in March 2024 in relation to allotment of court complex land without consulting the Association.

The bench CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which debarred 10 members of the Seoni District Bar Association from appearing in any court for a period of one month and contesting elections to the Bar Association or Bar Council of the state.

'If JAG Posts Are Gender Neutral, Why Fewer Women Allowed?' Supreme Court Questions Union

Case Details: Arshnoor Kaur V Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 772/2023

The Supreme Court questioned the rationale behind the low vacancy of women in the post of Judge Advocate General (JAG). It asked the Union why, despite its claim that the JAG post was gender-neutral, it preferred men over equally qualified women.

In this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the notification dated 18.01.2023 for the JAG Entry Scheme 31st Course, inviting applications from Law Graduates (Men and Women). It was pointed out that while six of the vacancies are earmarked for men, only three vacancies are earmarked for women.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged Honey Trapping Of Karnataka Politicians & Judges

Case Details: Binay Kumar Singh v. Union of India | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000126 / 2025

The Supreme Court (March 26) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a court-monitored investigation by CBI into the allegations of honey-trapping Karnataka's state legislators, political leaders and judges.

The plea filed by Binay Kumar Singh relates to the instance shared by the State's Cooperation Minister KN Rajanna on March 20 over alleged attempts to honeytrap him and nearly 47 other high-profile individuals, including politicians. The plea had sought the probe to be monitored either by the Apex Court or by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The bench led by Justice Vikram Nath, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta, dismissed the PIL.

Need To Achieve 33% Tree/Forest Cover In Delhi NCT: Supreme Court

Case Details: MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to achieve a target of 33 percent or more green cover in Delhi, as proposed by the Forest Research Institute (FRI).

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta case on the issue of enhancing the green cover of Delhi.

“In paragraph 3 laying down the objectives, it is proposed for enhancing green cover to achieve target of 33% of geographical area. Endeavour should be to achieve a target of 33% or even more than that of tree/forest cover”, the Court observed.

Supreme Court Asks Two UP Journalists To Avail Alternate Remedies Against FIR Over Articles On Caste Discrimination

Case Details: Abhishek Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr | W.P.(Crl.) No. 402/2024

The Supreme Court today(Wednesday) disposed of two writ petitions filed by journalists from Uttar Pradesh, Abhishek Upadhyay and Mamta Tripathi, seeking protection against the FIRs registered against him after he published an Article identifying people of a particular caste who were deployed in responsible positions in the State. Following the publication of the said Article and also after he posted the story on X(formerly Twitter), an FIR was registered against him in 2024. However, it continued the interim protection against arrest for four weeks to allow the parties to seek appropriate remedies.

Supreme Court Refuses Transfer To Another Bench PIL Seeking Lifelong Ban On MP/MLAs After Conviction

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 699/2016

A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant refused to transfer to another bench a 2016 PIL seeking expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MP/MLAs and lifelong ban on the said class of politicians after conviction.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was requested by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria (acting as Amicus) that the matter be listed before a bench of which Justice Singh was not part, apparently for the reason that he and Justice Singh had worked together.

Observing that the bench would have acceded to the request had the case been adversarial in nature, Justice Kant declined the transfer, stressing that the case was in public interest.

Supreme Court Directs Central Adoption Resource Authority To Issue NOC In Plea Seeking To Ease Inter-Country Adoption

Case Details: Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority | SLP(C) No. 014886 - / 2024

In a plea relating to ease the procedure for inter-country adoption, the Supreme Court (March 24) directed CARA to issue a No Objection Certificate in 4 weeks to steadfast the adoption process.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a petition seeking the inter-country adoption of two children by a 49-year-old single Indian woman who resides in the United Kingdom.

The Court has directed Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) within 4 weeks to facilitate the inter-country adoption.

Supreme Court Asks Union & Delhi Govts To Inquire If Indraprastha Apollo Hospital Provided Free Treatment To Poor In Last 5 Years

Case Details: Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. Thr. M.D. v. All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit), SLP(C) No.29482/2009

Following an allegation against the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital that it is not providing free treatment to poor patients as part of its obligations under a government land lease, the Supreme Court called for a joint inspection of the hospital records by the Delhi government and Union of India to ascertain inter-alia how many poor patients were treated at the hospital in the last 5 years.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, asking the joint Committee of the Delhi government and the Union to file a report on the following:

"(i) Whether the lease deed, on expiry of the lease period, has been renewed? If so, on what terms and conditions?

(ii) If the lease period has not been renewed and extended, what lawful recourse has been initiated to restore the Government land?

(iii) A team of experts be deputed to count the total bed strength in the hospital and the records of the outdoor patients footfall of at least the past 5 years.

(iv) The affidavit will further explain how many poor patients, on the recommendations of the State Authorities, have been provided indoor treatment or have been treated as outdoor patients during at least the last 5 years."

Can GST Act Timelines Be Relaxed For Bonafide Errors? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae, Issues Notice To CBIC

Case Details: Union of India & Ors. v. Brij Systems Ltd & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6334/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act. The Court appointed Senior Advocate Arvind Datar as an Amicus Curiae to assist in the present case.

Supreme Court Directs Payment Of Rs 30 Lakhs Compensation Within 4 Weeks For Manual Sewer Cleaners' Deaths In Metros In Last 3 Months

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

Following its previous order summoning officials from major cities (Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bengaluru) over unsatisfactory affidavits on banning manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning, the Supreme Court noted that the new affidavits were cleverly worded to create a false impression of compliance. It warned that failure to file proper affidavits in the next hearing would lead to suo-moto contempt proceedings.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar has been hearing a writ petition seeking a ban on manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning. The bench again expressed that the practice of manual scavenging has to be stopped.

The Court has also directed the metropolitan authorities to pay within four weeks Rs 30 lakh compensation to the kin of the persons who died in the last three months.

Ooty & Kodaikanal Tourism: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Hoteliers' Plea Against E-Pass Limits For Tourist Vehicles

Case Details: Tamil Nadu Hotels Association v. G. Subramania Koushik and Ors., Diary No. 15768-2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge to the Madras High Court order which imposed restrictions on the number of vehicles plying to the Nilgiris and Kodaikanal this summer to manage congestion in tourist places.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh opined that the High Court order was "perfectly correct" and declined to interfere with the same. However, as the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Hotels Association, prayed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to approach the High Court, the Bench permitted it to do so.

Supreme Court Allows Union Minister Kumaraswamy To Raise Grievances Against Land Eviction Notices Before Karnataka HC

Case Details: H D Kumaraswamy v. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (SPS) & Ors.

The Supreme Court disposed of a plea of JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) over the eviction notices issued to him in regards to the allegations of illegal encroachment of government lands in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi, in a contempt petition ongoing before the Karnataka High Court.

The High Court has initiated contempt proceedings against the authorities, which failed to comply with the Lokayukta's order ordering that the illegally encroached lands in Kethaganahalli village should be reclaimed by the Government. The State had formed a special investigation team of senior officials and found the allegations of encroachment prima facie true. Kumaraswamy has denied the allegations of encroaching the said land and alleged a conspiracy initiated by the Congress Government.

Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab Police Over Poor Investigation In Unnatural Death Of Wife; Constitutes SIT

Case Details: Deepak Gupta v. State of Punjab and Anr., SLP(Crl) No. 6899/2021

Pulling up the State of Punjab over its shoddy investigation in the murder case of a woman, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team of Punjab cadre officials not belonging to the state to probe the matter.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, directing the Punjab Director General of Police to constitute the SIT within 1 week, which shall comprise two IPS officers of Punjab cadre not having roots in the state and one woman officer of the rank of DySP (or above).

The Court was of the view that the victim died an "unnatural death" and had there been a timely investigation to complete the chain of circumstances, the investigation would have reached a logical conclusion.

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To West Bengal Taxes On Entry Of Goods Act

Case Details: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

The Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas Act, 2012, as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, along with related Rules and notifications.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice returnable on April 22, 2025 in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Finance Act amended various provisions of the Entry Tax Act with retrospective effect.

“We are of the view that we must look into the issue involved in the matter. Issue notice, returnable on 22-4-2025”, the Court said.

Supreme Court Directs DDA Vice-Chairman To Explain Non-Compliance With Orders To Take Action Against Illegal Structures On Public Land

The Supreme Court directed the Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to file a personal affidavit explaining its failure to comply with orders related to the demolition of certain illegal constructions on public land in Okhla, Delhi.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Vice-Chairman to respond within three weeks and kept the matter on April 17, 2025 for further hearing.

Senior Citizens Act Doesn't Mandate Eviction Of Children From Parents' Home In Every Case: Supreme Court Rejects Mother's Plea To Evict Son

Case Details: Samtola Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Noting that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“2007 Act”), ensures maintenance for elderly parents but does not explicitly permit eviction, the Supreme Court (March 27) dismissed an elderly mother's plea to evict her son from their ancestral home following a strained relationship.

The Court clarified that the 2007 Act does not mandate the automatic eviction of children from parental property; eviction orders can only be passed in exceptional cases to safeguard the senior citizen's well-being.

“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.”, observed the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti. The Court noted that as per the Act, the Tribunal can provide for the monthly maintenance and expenses, and in case of default, it can issue a warrant to levy fines and even sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.

Punjab Municipal Elections: Supreme Court Appoints Former P&H HC Judge To Enquire Into Candidates' Allegations Of Nomination Paper-Snatching, Etc.

Case Details: Seema Sharma v. State of Punjab, SLP(C) No. 3894/2025

The Supreme Court constituted a Fact Finding Commission and appointed a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge to enquire into issues raised by candidates of Punjab municipal elections regarding conduct of the polls.

Without expressing any opinion on merits, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order appointing Justice Nirmaljit Kaur (former High Court judge) to perform the stipulated task, preferably on day-today basis, and submit a report.