Home
/

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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: February 03, 2025 To February 09, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

14 Feb 2025 8:57 PM IST

Reports/Judgments

Order Passed On Oral Consent Given By Counsel Can't Be Reviewed On Ground That There Was No Written Consent : Supreme Court

Case Details: Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 143

The Supreme Court emphasized that all constitutional courts in India accept oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties, and an order cannot be reviewed solely on the ground that consent was not provided in writing.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a review petition in a service matter based solely on the lack of written consent for an earlier order passed by the High Court.

“All constitutional courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on the footing that there is no consent given in writing. As oral consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26 April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent”, the Court held

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

Case Details: Lok Prahari through its General Secretary v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 144

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

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

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

Supreme Court Directs Delhi's Defence Colony Welfare Association To Vacate Illegal Possession Of Lodhi-Era Tomb

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 145

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, for its illegal encroachment of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance. The Court has ordered the DCWA to handover the peaceful possession of Gumti within 2 weeks.

It added that in the process of evacuation, no further damage should be done to the Gumti and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is responsible for removing any other encroachment if done. A Court Commissioner has accordingly been appointed by the Court to supervise the handing over of the monument from DCWA to the Land &Development Office, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (L&DO), the original owner of the building. In 1962, the land where the Gumti is situated was handed over to MCD for its maintenance.

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

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 146

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

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

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

Indefinite Suspension Not Permitted; Consider Reinstatement Of Tihar Jail Officials Suspended In Unitech Case: Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 147

Dealing with an application filed in the Unitech case, the Supreme Court directed the competent authority to decide within 4 weeks the issue of reinstatement of 32 Tihar jail officials, who were suspended pursuant to its 2021 order for extending undue help and assistance to ex-Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra & Ajay Chandra while they were in jail.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, saying that indefinite suspension cannot be permitted as it causes significant loss to the public exchequer. It was further observed that the concerned officials have remained under suspension for over 3.5 yrs.

The issue of reinstatement of the concerned officials shall be considered by the competent authority on a case-to-case basis, the Court said.

Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act

Case Details: M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 6657 of 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 148

The Supreme Court reiterated that in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court has a narrower scope to review the arbitral award if the award has already been upheld under Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral awards). Reliance was placed on the recent decision in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India, wherein the Court had said:

“The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality i.e. that “illegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be of a trivial nature”; and that the Tribunal “must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground” The other ground would be denial of natural justice. In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34.”

Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores: Supreme Court

Case Details: P.V. Krishnabhat v. State of Karnataka, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1754/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149

The Supreme Court while quashing a case involving allegations of cruelty and dowry said that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment. It added that courts must be cautious while dealing with such cases to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives., the Court said.

“Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the provisions are intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior motives.”

S. 74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It's Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty: Supreme Court

Case Details: Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 150

The Supreme Court clarified that forfeiting a reasonable earnest money deposit in a contract does not constitute a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872.

“It can be seen that this Court has held that if the forfeiture of earnest money under a contract is reasonable, then it does not fall within Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, inasmuch as, such a forfeiture does not amount to imposing a penalty.”, the Court held.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the case in which the Respondents, as flat purchasers, challenged the Appellant builder's forfeiture of 20% of the basic sale price as earnest money following their cancellation of the flat booking.

Supreme Court Allows All Disabled Candidates To Take Scribe In Exams Without Meeting Benchmark Disabilities

Case Details: Gulshan Kumar v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection | W.P.(C) No. 1018/2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 151

The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate suffering from Focal Hand Dystonia(a type of a writ's camp), seeking to avail the benefit of the scribe by relying on landmark Vikas Kumar v. UPSC (2021) in which it held that benchmark disability is not the precondition to obtaining a scribe.

The Court has held that the facility of scribe and other necessary facilities should be extended to all disabilities thereby upholding the right of inclusive education of persons with disability to participate in examinations with necessary accommodations.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan passed the judgment by reiterating the Vikas Kumar judgment in which a UPSC candidate, who suffered from Writer's camp, was allowed to avail scribe as against the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2018, in which it was stated that a scribe could be provided only to blind candidates and candidates with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy with an impairment of at least 40%.

'Each Judge Has 15K-20K Matters': Supreme Court Expresses Concern At Allahabad HC Case Pendency; Stresses On Need To Fill Vacancies

Case Details: Kamla Bai v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 152

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition filed by 95-year-old petitioner seeking directions for the Allahabad High Court to take up her second Appeal pending since 2013 and decide the matter at the earliest.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed that the order passed in the present writ petition shall be treated as a representation addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in regards to matters pending for many decades in the High Court and pass an appropriate order in this regard on its administrative side.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court has been struggling to cope with the pending matters and the only way out is to take necessary steps at the earliest to fill up the vacancies by recommending suitable persons on the basis of pure merit and ability.

'Uma Devi' Judgment Can't Justify Exploitative Engagements: Supreme Court Allows Regularisation Of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

Case Details: Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153

The Supreme Court criticized the practice of public institutions hiring workers on daily wages (temporary contracts) to avoid providing them with permanent benefits. The Court reaffirmed that long-serving temporary workers appointed to sanctioned positions cannot be denied regularization simply because their initial appointments were temporary.

While acknowledging the precedent set in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which established that daily wage workers cannot claim permanent employment without meeting constitutional requirements and the existence of sanctioned vacancies, the Court clarified that this ruling cannot be used to deny long-serving workers their rights when the work they perform is inherently permanent.

“Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.”, the court observed.

Meticulous Examination Needed In Cases Where FIR Was Against Unknown Persons & Accused Are Not Known To Witnesses : Supreme Court

Case Details: Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Emphasizing the need for meticulous examination in cases involving unidentified accused, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of two individuals in a case for bus robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.

“In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the case where the Appellants being unknown to the witnesses alleged to have committed robbery in the moving bus.

'Extrajudicial confession Lacks Credibility, Circumstances Not Proved': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

Case Details: Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155

While acquitting a murder accused, the Supreme Court observed that extrajudicial confession is one of the other instances of circumstantial evidence, including the accused's guilt after the incident, recovery of evidence, and others. The Court reiterated that in cases where reliance is placed solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can only occur when all circumstances point towards the accused's guilt.

“The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence”, the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held.

Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved.

The Court clarified that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory. If the woman and her first husband mutually agreed to separate, the absence of a legal divorce does not prevent her from seeking maintenance from her second husband.

Holding so, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted relief to the woman allowing her appeal against the Telangana High Court's order to deny her maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from her second husband just because her marriage with the first husband was not legally dissolved.

"It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband," the Court observed while holding that S.125 CrPC required a broad interpretation considering its social welfare objective.

Omission To Conduct TIP Of Recovered Articles Material When Case Is Based Solely On Recoveries: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict

Case Details: Thammaraya and Another v. State of Karnataka., Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157

The Supreme Court in a matter where the prosecution had solely relied on the recovery of articles for convicting accused persons for murder, observed that failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles was “sheer negligence and dereliction of duty”.

While acquitting appellants/ accused persons charged with murder, the Court observed that, in cases where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, every relevant fact must be linked with duly proved circumstances.

“Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend. Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt.,” marked the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.

Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is A Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 158

The Supreme Court noted that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural, weakening the complainant's account. This omission, though otherwise irrelevant, becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, the Court stated.

Holding so, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an individual in a murder case after noting that the lead complainant (deceased's father) omitted to mention two perpetrators in FIR, who according to him were present at the crime incident accompanying the main accused in the commission of the crime.

The Court observed that the complainant's omission to name two perpetrators in FIR, otherwise not relevant, becomes relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.

“If he claims to be an eye-witness to the incident and is said to have witnessed three persons known to him assaulting his son i.e. the deceased then what was the good reason not to name the other two accused (juvenile Accused) in the FIR. This omission assumes significance and is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed.

Application Seeking Exemption From Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner Sentenced To Term Of Imprisonment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jasminbhai Bharatbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat., Diary No. - 45970/2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 159

The Supreme Court observed that as per its 2013 rules, an application, filed in special leave petitions, seeking exemption from surrendering can neither be entertained nor listed before the Judge-in-Chambers, except when the petitioner has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Referring to Order XXII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court observed :

"On perusal of the aforesaid Rule,it is clear that an Interlocutory Application for exemption from surrendering is admissible only where the petitioner in the special leave petition has been 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and not in any other situation."

"We have observed that the Registry of this Court has been entertaining applications for exemption from surrendering in various other categories of cases, such as the rejection of anticipatory bail, rejection of a prayer for an extension of interim bail, etc," the Court added.

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction For Rape & Kidnapping After Noting Convict Married Victim & Have 4 Children

Case Details: Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh., Criminal Appeal No. 41/2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 160

The Supreme Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the sentence of the present accused-appellant for rape and kidnapping charges after noting that he married the complainant and they have four children.

The Bench of Justices B.V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, after perusing the submissions, observed that Article 142 of the Constitution confers special power to pass necessary orders for doing complete justice. The Court acknowledged that this power should be used sparingly and after keeping peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in regard. Taking note of the fact that the appellant-accused subsequently married the victim and had four children out of their wedlock, the Court invoked its inherent power in the present case.

Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Plea To Prospectively Apply 2019 Judgment Allowing Solatium & Interest For National Highway Land Acquisitions

Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 in C.A. No. 7064/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 161

The Supreme Court dismissed plea filed by NHAI seeking a clarification that the Court's 2019 ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh on grant of solatium and interest to landowners shall apply prospectively.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rendered the decision, stating,

"Granting such clarification would nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide...The ultimate outcome of Tarsem Singh is related to granting solatium and interest to aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015...It does not in any way direct the reopening of cases that have already attained finality. On the contrary, modifying or clarifying Tarsem Singh would land itself to violating the doctrine of immutability undermining the finality of the decision...what the applicant seeks to achieve indirectly is to evade responsibility and further delay resolution of a settled issue, where the directions given are unequivocal...What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."

Acquittal In Criminal Case Doesn't Bar Departmental Proceedings Against Public Servant: Supreme Court

Case Details: Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 162

The Supreme Court noted that even if a public servant is acquitted in a corruption case due to a lack of evidence meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, they may still face a departmental inquiry.

In criminal proceedings, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while departmental inquiries require only a preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed that this difference means an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent or halt a disciplinary inquiry, thus even if the public servant was dismissed based on a disciplinary inquiry, his/her reinstatement is not automatic after a criminal acquittal.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta heard a case involving the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and a former employee. The AAI appealed against a decision of the Calcutta High Court that overturned the employee's dismissal from services based on a departmental disciplinary inquiry in a corruption case.

If A Intends To Kill B But Mistakenly Kills C, Intention To Kill C Is Attributed To A: Supreme Court Explains 'Transmigration Of Motive'

Case Details: Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705/2015

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163

The Supreme Court observed that Section 301 of the IPC (Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended) reflects the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Explaining this provision, the Court said that culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. Provided that the killing takes place while doing an act which the offender intended.

Taking the help of an illustration, the Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan elaborated:

“From the perusal of the provision of Section 301 of the IPC, it becomes manifest that Section 301 embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Under the Section, if A intends to kill B, but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed to him.”

Further Investigation Can Be Directed Even After Filing Of Chargesheet & Commencement Of Trial: Supreme Court

Case Details: Rampal Gautam v. The State, Diary No. – 33274/2016

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 164

The Supreme Court reiterated that further investigation can be directed even after the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. Taking support of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat and Others., (2004) 5 SCC 347, the Court highlighted that the prime consideration for further investigation is to arrive at the truth and do substantial justice.

However, before directing such an investigation, the Court, after going through the available material, should apply its mind to whether an investigation of the concerned allegations is required.

Many Litigants Socio-Economically Backward, Shouldn't Suffer Due To Advocate's Fault: Supreme Court On Approach In Delay Condonation

Case Details: Kumari Sahu v. Bhubanananda Sahu, Diary No. – 41995/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 165

The Supreme Court observed that though courts have to be cautious while condoning delays of long duration, in cases where the delay can be attributed to the advocate, balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative. It highlighted that the socio-economic background of litigants who approach the courts for justice should be kept in mind.

“We are aware of the caution that needs to be exercised in matters relating to condonation of delay of longer durations. However, it must be noted that balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative when it comes to such matters, especially given the socio-economic background of a large number of India's population who approach these doors of justice as litigants.”

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while condoning the delay of 225 days in filing a second appeal before the High Court. Essentially, the present appellant had filed a Civil Suit, among others, seeking a declaration, as herself being the legally married wife of one (late) Raj Kishore Sahoo. The suit having been dismissed, she filed a first appeal. Since the same was also dismissed, she approached the High Court in a second appeal.

Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Law Which Delegates Power Of Issuing Transport Permits To STA Secretary

Case Details: M/S S.R.S. Travels By Its Proprietor K.T. Rajashekar v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Workers & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 166

The Supreme Court, in a key ruling regarding private motor vehicle operators in Karnataka, upheld the constitutionality of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (“2003 Act”) granting the power to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority(STA) to issue transport permits within the state.

The Court also upheld that the power of the STA to its Secretary to issue transport permits.

The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale observed that the routine grant of permits should not be constricted in the hands of the State Transport Authority (“STA”), rather the delegation of routine functions for the grant of permit is permissible to reduce the load of the STA, to avoid delays.

The Supreme Court observed that the new Act repealing an old Act would not require a Presidential Assent under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The Court rejected the argument that the repealing act needed presidential approval simply because the original act had received it. Instead, it said that if the repealing act corrects flaws in the old law, adapting it to current needs rather than renewing it, presidential assent is not necessary.

“Moreover, the argument that the repeal should have required fresh presidential assent is misplaced. A repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act's operative provisions; it is not subject to the same procedural requirements as an original enactment when it comes to the need for fresh assent, provided that the repeal falls within the legislative competence of the State.”, the court observed.

Supreme Court Criticises 'Undue Haste' Of Trial Court In Awarding Death Penalty In 2 Months Without Proper Opportunity For Defence

Case Details: Irfan v. State of Madhya Pradesh., Criminal Appeal No. 1667-1668 of 2021

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 167

The Supreme Court while quashing the death penalty of the present appellant/accused, observed that the reliance on the DNA report without examining scientific experts led to the failure of justice, thereby, vitiating the trial.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta pointed out that the trial was completed in less than two months without giving the accused an appropriate opportunity to defend themselves. Thus, the trial process exhibited “undue haste.”

The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable., the Court reasoned.

S.498A IPC | When Family Relations Are Sought To Be Brought Under Criminal Proceedings, Courts Should Be Cautious: Supreme Court

Case Details: Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9556 of 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 168

The Supreme Court while quashing criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand and domestic violence against the present appellants, highlighted that invoking criminal laws in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials may have disastrous consequences for families.

“Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations.

For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.,” the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh added.

Arrest Illegal If Reasons Not Informed; When Art 22(1) Is Violated, Court Must Grant Bail Despite Statutory Restrictions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr, SLP(Crl) No. 13320/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Noting that informing an arrested individual of the grounds for their arrest is a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court stressed that this information must be conveyed clearly and effectively. The Court also emphasized the magistrate's duty to ensure compliance with Article 22(1) during remand, noting that any violation could warrant the person's release or justify the granting of bail, even in cases with statutory restrictions.

“Even if statutory restrictions on grant of bail exist, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh delivered separate but concurring judgments discussing the mandatory nature of informing an arrested person of the grounds for their arrest, as guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court clarified that informing persons' relatives about their arrest does not exempt the police or investigating agency from their legal and constitutional obligation to inform the arrested persons themselves of the grounds for their arrest.

'Sorry State Of Affairs In Puducherry': Supreme Court Directs CVC Probe Into Illegal Appointments Of Polytechnic Lecturers

Case Details: Union of India Rep by Government of Puducherry & Anr. v. K. Velajagan & Ors., SLP(C) No. 2868/2018

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 170

While directing a probe into illegal appointments of ad hoc lecturers in Puducherry, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordered the UT government to regularize services of 18 lecturers, without any involvement of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed the order, stating,

"we also direct that all the 18 incumbent lecturers (15 + 3) be regularized by the Government of Puducherry without any involvement of the UPSC. This order is passed in exercise of powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution."

Non-payment Of Authorization Fee When Vehicle Was Within Its Registered State Won't Invalidate Its National Permit: Supreme Court

Case Details: Shri Binod Kumar Singh v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 171

The Supreme Court held that insurers cannot deny claims solely due to non-renewal of a state permit if a valid national permit is in place. The Court clarified that if a vehicle catches fire within its registered state, non-payment of authorization fees for a state permit would not invalidate the claim.

The Court added that the authorization fee for renewal of state permit is only necessary when the vehicle is moved outside the State. Since the vehicle caught fire in its registered state (Bihar), the insurance company cannot deny the claim citing lack of renewal of state permit when national permit is in existence.

The Court rejected the insurance company's argument that non-payment of authorization fees for the state permit invalidates the existing national permit for securing insurance claims. Instead, it said that a National Permit remains valid even if an authorization fee is not paid, provided the vehicle is used within its home state

HC Closing Case Based On Respondent's Affidavit Without Giving Petitioner Chance To Respond Violates Natural Justice Principles: Supreme Court

Case Details: D.M. Jagadish v. Bangalore Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172

The Supreme Court, while quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by a development authority against the appellant, observed that the High Court's reliance on the authority's affidavit without providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond is violative of natural justice principles.

“We find that the approach of the Division Bench in relying on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made in the said affidavit would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.,” held the bench of Justices B.R Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran.

Income Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20519 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 173

The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for having filed the belated income tax return, was upheld on the ground that only for the "first offence" compounding of offence is possible. Since the Appellant had filed delayed income tax for 2011-2012 and his compounding application was accepted, it now cannot be accepted.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the "first offence" is the offence committed prior to the show cause notice, which was the case here for both years.

For Abetment Of Suicide Offence, Alleged Harassment Must Have Left Victim With No Other Alternative But To End Life: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ayyub v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No. - 21115/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 174

The Supreme Court while quashing charges of abetment of suicide against the present appellants, reiterated that the alleged harassment should be of such nature that it leaves the victim with no other alternative but to end their life.

Further, the accused's intention to aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide must be established. Reliance was placed on a plethora of decisions, with the recent one being Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

"In order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide."

Supreme Court Acquits Man On Death Row, Cites Faulty Investigation & Gaps In Prosecution Case

Case Details: Gambhir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 175

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of an accused (convicted of the death penalty) in a case for allegedly committing the gruesome murder of his six family members, including his four children and brother. The Court cited faulty investigation and flawed recovery of evidence by the Uttar Pradesh police.

"The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend," the Court said.

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove any incriminating circumstances such as motive, last seen, and recoveries against the accused.

“the prosecution has failed to prove even one of the three so-called incriminating circumstances i.e., 'motive', 'last seen' and 'recoveries' in its quest to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused. Even if, for the sake of arguments the evidence of recovery of weapons were to be accepted, the fact remains that the FSL report does not give any indication regarding the grouping of the blood found on the weapons and hence, the recoveries are of no avail to the prosecution”, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta held.

Orders

'Positive Example Of Out-of-Court Settlement': Supreme Court Lauds Parties After Trademark Dispute Was Amicably Settled

Case Details: Murlidhar Gyanchandani and others v. State of Jharkhand and another., Criminal Appeal No. 5549 of 2024

In a trademark dispute that was resolved through out-of-court settlement, the Supreme Court expressed its hope for the constructive negotiation of such disputes without requiring several rounds of litigation.

“We hope that this serves as a positive example of an out-of-court settlement, demonstrating how disputes can often be constructively negotiated without the need for sparring litigation before a court of law.,” the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said.

Whether Teachers Appointed Prior To July 29, 2011 Must Pass TET To Be Considered For Promotion? Supreme Court To Consider

Case Details: The Director of School Education Chennai 6 v. B. Annie Packiarani Bai, SLP(C) No. 2691/2022 (and connected cases)

The Supreme Court is set to consider the question as to whether teachers appointed prior to July 29, 2011, having years of teaching experience, are required to qualify the Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) to be considered for promotion. The Court is also to examine whether, in case of minority institutions, there can be insistence by school education departments on teachers' passing of the TET.

For context, on July 29, 2011, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) made TET mandatory under amendments to the notification laying down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan passed an order stipulating the issues.

Supreme Court Seeks Forensic Report On Audio Tapes Alleging Manipur CM Biren Singh's Role In Ethnic Violence

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

The Supreme Court sought the production of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory on the examination of certain audio tapes which allegedly recorded the statements to Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh suggesting his involvement in the State's ethnic violence. The report has to be submitted in a sealed cover.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed the order in a writ petition filed by the Kuki Organization for Human Rights Trust seeking an independent investigation into the audio tapes. The matter will be posted next in the week commencing on March 24, 2025.

Mahakumbh Mela Stampede | Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against UP Govt, Allows Petitioner To Approach High Court

Case Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors W.P.(C) No. 86/2025

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking action against Uttar Pradesh state officials for the stampede which occurred at the Maha Kumbh Mela last week.

The Court asked the petitioner, Advocate Vishal Tiwari, to approach the Allahabad High Court. "It is an unfortunate incident, something which is of concern. but go to the High Court. There is already a judicial commission constituted" CJI told Tiwari, who said that stampede incidents were becoming regular.

Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Recall TN Governor RN Ravi For Walking Out Of Assembly

Case Details: CR Jaya Sukin v. The Secretary to the President and others | W.P.(C) No. 98/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to recall Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi for walking out of the Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly without delivering the customary address.

Petitioner in Person CR Jaya Sukin said " He (governor) has violated the entire constitution....he has insulted the people of the entire Tamil Nadu." He sought directions to the President of India to recall the Governor. He cited Article 156, as per which a Governor holds the post at the pleasure of the President.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar while dismissing the petition, noted that the ambit of prayers was outside the scope of the Court.

The CJI observed: "We cannot grant that prayer, we are also bound by the Constitution ...petition is dismissed"

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Provisions Of Dowry Prohibition Act

Case Details: Rupshi Singh v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 68/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging validity of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as "adverse to men".

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order. Dismissing the PIL, the bench asked the petitioner to approach the Parliament.

Supreme Court Declines Gurmeet Ram Rahim's Plea To Stay Trial In 2015 Sacrilege Cases

Case Details: State of Punjab v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Ors., Diary No. 43184-2024

Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim has moved the Supreme Court seeking vacation of stay imposed on the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which stopped the trial in the 2015 sacrilege cases.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter today, pursuant to an application filed by Ram Rahim (for vacation of stay) in Punjab government's plea challenging the High Court's stay on trial. Though a request for stay of the trial was made on his behalf, the bench declined the same.

"The prayer in the interim application cannot be granted without hearing the matter on merits. Rejoinder be filed within a period of 3 weeks from today. Post the SLP for hearing on March 18."

Delhi Air Pollution| Supreme Court Directs CAQM To Hold Meeting With 3 States On Proposed Action Plans To Tackle Stubble Burning

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 013029 / 1985

The Supreme Court directed the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) to hold a meeting with the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.P on the proposed action plans for crop diversification, In-situ and Ex-situ management for crop residue and mass awareness and consultation programmes in an effort to tackle the issue of stubble burning by farmers.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the MC Mehta case concerning pollution management in Delhi NCR, focusing on issues related to vehicular pollution, solid waste management, and stubble burning in the NCR states.

Why Detain Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants Indefinitely Instead Of Deporting Them? Supreme Court Asks Union

Case Details: Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013

The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government about the purpose of keeping hundreds of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in detention centres in India for an indefinite period, instead of deporting them to their native country.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh has been apprehended and convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946, then they should be immediately deported to their native country after their period of sentence. The bench wondered if they should be kept for an indefinite period in detention centres/correctional homes in India.

The bench noted that there are almost 850 illegal migrants detained in correctional homes and sought to know the exact present figures.

"Vague Complaint, Complete Assumptions": Supreme Court Affirms HC Order Quashing FIR Against BJP Leader Over Alleged Electoral Bonds Extortion

Case Details: Adarsh R. Iyer v. State of Karnataka SLP(Crl) No. 1183/2025

The Supreme Court while dismissing the plea challenging the discharge of ex-BJP Karnataka State President Naleen Kumar Kateel in a case alleging extortion through electoral bonds, remarked that the complaint was 'vague' and based on 'assumptions'

The Court however clarified that the dismissal of the present plea would not bar anyone from showing material evidence which could justify the filing of the FIR/complaint.

Assault Of SC Lawyers At Gautam Budh Nagar Court: Supreme Court Warns President & Secretary Of Bar Association Over Non Appearance

Case Details: In Re: Assault On Two Members of The Supreme Court Bar Association At District Court Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar Versus, SMW(C) No. 3/2024

In the suo motu case initiated following the assault on two members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) at Gautam Budh Nagar District Court during a lawyers' strike, the Supreme Court issued fresh notices to the President and Secretary of Jan Path Diwani Evam Faujdari Bar Association, Gautam Budh Nagar.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, taking into account withdrawal of vakalatnama by the counsel representing President and Secretary of the bar association.

It asked the President and the Secretary to appear on the next date, clarifying that their failure to appear would be viewed seriously.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On RTI Activist's Plea Challenging Amendment To Election Rules Restricting Public Disclosure Of Poll Records

Case Details: Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India| W.P.(C) No. 000083 / 2025

The Supreme issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India in a petition challenging the amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which seeks to restrict people's right to access election related records.

The petition has been filed by Anjali Bhardwaj who is a transparency activist and has been working on issues of transparency and accountability for several decades.

The bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice in the petition tagged it with the similarly pending challenge by Congress Rajya Sabha MP and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh

Supreme Court Bars Union & States From Reducing Forest Land Unless Compensatory Land Provided

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 restrained the Union and the States from taking any steps that would lead to reduction in "forest land" across the country, unless provision is made by them for compensatory land.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order to the following effect: "Until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union or any of the states which would lead to reduction in the forest land, unless compensatory land is provided either by the State or the Union for the purposes of forestation."

Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Plea To Prospectively Apply 2019 Judgment Allowing Solatium & Interest For National Highway Land Acquisitions

Case Details: Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., MA 1773/2021 in C.A. No. 7064/2019

The Supreme Court dismissed plea(s) filed by NHAI seeking a clarification that the Court's 2019 ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh on grant of solatium and interest to landowners shall apply prospectively.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan rendered the decision, stating,

'Can't Delay Deportation Saying Address Not Known': Supreme Court Asks Assam Govt To Initiate Process To Deport 63 Persons Declared As Foreigners

Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020

The Supreme Court pulled up the State of Assam for not taking steps to deport persons declared as foreigners and for keeping them in detention centres indefinitely.

The Court expressed surprise at the explanation given by the State of Assam that the steps were not taken as the foreign addresses of the detained persons were not known. The Court directed the State to immediately initiate the process of deporting 63 declared foreigners, whose nationality was known, and file a status report in two weeks.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed serious displeasure with the State's affidavit for not divulging the relevant information and termed it "per se defective."

The State was directed to file an affidavit updating the status within a period of two weeks. The bench further directed that it was the responsibility of the State to ensure that all facilities in the detention centre are properly maintained. The State was directed to constitute a committee of officers who will visit the transit camps/detention centres once fortnight and ensure that proper facilities are available there.

The Court also directed the Union Government to give details regarding the persons deported so far. The Union was also asked to inform how it proposed to deal with persons whose nationality was not known.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Petitions Challenging 2019 UAPA Amendments, Says High Courts Must Decide First

Case Details: Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 1076/2019 and Connected Matters

The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act and directed the High Courts to hear writ petitions challenging the amendments.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a batch of pleas relating to the challenge to the UAPA Amendment Act 2019 and NIA provisions.

In relation to the pleas challenging the UAPA Amendment 2019, clarified that "All High Courts to proceed with the Writ Petitions challenging the provisions of the UAPA"

The Court directed that appeals filed by accused or victims in matters under the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 would not be dismissed on reason that delay beyond a period of 90 days cannot be condoned.

The bench dictated the order as follows: "The appeals preferred by the accused or the victims will not be dismissed on the ground that the delay cannot be condoned beyond 90 days"

NEET-PG 2024 | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Fresh AIQ Round 3 Counselling Due To Alleged Anomalies In MP State Round 2

Case Details: Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 103/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea seeking direction to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct AIQ (All India Quota) Round III of NEET-PG 2024 counselling afresh on the ground that there were instances of seat blocking following delay in completion of 2nd round of state counselling in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order upon hearing Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for petitioners), who argued that due to instances of seat blocking and delay in completion of MP State Round II, there were lesser seats in AIQ Round III and candidates got lower subject category seats. The senior counsel prayed for a chance to the petitioners to participate in stray counselling.

Supreme Court Allows Karnataka HC To Proceed With Direct Recruitment Of 158 Civil Judges Ignoring State Govt's Circular

Case Details: Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary and Ors | C.A. No. 1867/2006

While hearing the issue of pending vacancies in the district judiciary, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka High Court to proceed with the selection process of recruiting 158 civil judges irrespective of the state government's circular holding up direct recruitments to the judiciary.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was informed that the Karnataka Government in its circular dated November 15, 2024, stopped the direct recruitment process by making amendments to reservations under Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment ) (Amendment) Rules 2024.

The CJI, in his order, directed that the High Court continue with the selection process as an interim measure only.

"Issue notice, and as an interim measure we direct that the process of direct recruitment of 158 civil judges in Karnataka shall continue notwithstanding the circular dated 15.11.24 issued by the State Government. This order is subject to the final outcome/decision on the application"

'We Admire Courage Of Madhya Pradesh State In Filing Petitions With 300/400 Days' Delay': Supreme Court Summons MP Law Secretary

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Gokulchand & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 61179/2024

Taking a stern view on excessive delay in filing an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh Government, the Supreme Court directed the Law Secretary of the State to be present to explain who was the authority behind deciding to file the case.

The bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan was hearing a plea filed by the State Government challenging the order of the MP High Court which dismissed its second appeal due to a gross delay of 656 days in filing.

Most States Have Amended Rules To Include Mother's Name In Child's Documents: Supreme Court Disposes Of 2014 PIL

Case Details: Madhav Kant Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 576/2014

The Supreme Court disposed of the public interest litigation filed in 2014 seeking identification of children by the names of their mothers in all official documents and affidavits.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, taking into account the fact that the petitioner has since passed away and majority of the states/Union Territories have undertaken policy measures to ensure that a mother's name is inserted in all official/public records of her child.

"The petitioner raised an issue of paramount importance and as per the reply-affidavits filed by most of the states, they have accepted the concern raised by the petitioner and taken policy decision/amended rules etc. to ensure that the name of the mother of a child is inserted in all the official/public records. That being so, nothing survives in this writ petition" dictated Justice Kant.

Supreme Court Rejects Karnataka Govt's Argument That Sexual Act On Dead Body Amounts To 'Rape' Offence

Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi| SLP(Crl) No. 005403 - / 2024

The Supreme Court observed that since the Penal Laws do not recognise Necrophilia as an offence, it cannot interfere with the part acquittal order of the High Court in a case where the accused had sex with the body of the deceased after murdering her.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing a plea challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court which acquitted the accused from charges of rape for having sexual intercourse with the murdered body but upheld the conviction under the offence of murder.

Strong Measures Needed To Infuse Purity & Independence In Sports Bodies: Supreme Court In Kabbadi Federation Dispute

Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

While hearing a matter relating to the Kabbadi Federation , the Supreme Court said that some strong measures are required to be taken to "infuse purity, fairness, autonomy and independence" in the election of Sports Federations in India and to "oust such persons who have monopolized the sports federation for their vested interest.”

The bench took note of the offensive contents of a letter written by the "so-called" President of the Asian Kabbadi Federation to the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India(AKFI), and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the possibility of a CBI investigation, potentially involving INTERPOL, and pursuing diplomatic channels to resolve disputes surrounding the federation's recognition.

“Taking into consideration the oral submissions made on behalf of the intervenors and the learned Administrator, and also having taken cognizance of the offensive language used by the purported and so-called President of the Asian Federation, it seems to us that some strong measures are required to be taken in order to infuse purity, fairness, autonomy and independence in the election process, particularly to oust such persons who have monopolized the sports federation for their vested interest.”, the court remarked.

Supreme Court Relieves Datla Sreenivasa Varma As In-charge Of SIT Formed To Probe Manipur Extra-Judicial Killings

Case Details: Extra Judicial Execution Victim and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000129 / 2012

The Supreme Court allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s plea to release Datla Sreenivasa Varma from the position as the head of the SIT formed to probe into Manipur's extra-judicial killings.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing the issue of alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur by armed forces.

The bench allowed the application filed by the CBI to relieve Datla Sreenivasa Varma, Joint Director and HOZ, NE Zone as the in-charge of the SIT constituted to investigate the alleged illegal killings.

Registry Has No Authority To Delete A Case From Cause List Unless Specifically Ordered By Concerned Bench Or Chief Justice: Supreme Court

Case Details: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anup Singh

The Supreme Court held that the Registry has no authority to delete a case from the cause list once it has been listed, unless there is a specific order from the concerned bench or the Chief Justice of India.

“The fact that service of notice of making alternate arrangements was not served is no ground to delete a case which is notified on the cause list. Once the case is notified on the cause list, unless there is a specific order to that effect, either of the bench concerned or Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Registry has no authority to delete a case which is already listed”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held this after it noted that the Registry had deleted a case on the ground that the notice of alternate arrangement was not served on the litigant whose Advocate-on-Record had been designated as a Senior Advocate.

Supreme Court Directs Making Chandigarh UT A Party In Ex-Punjab CM Assassination Case Convict's Plea For Transfer From Tihar Jail

Case Details: Jagtar Singh Hawara v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. | W.P.(Crl.) No. 403/2024

The Supreme Court said that the Union Territory of Chandigarh must be made a party in the petition filed by Jagtar Singh Hawara, convicted in the 1995 assassination of former Chief Minister of Punjab Beant Singh and 16 others, for transfer from Tihar jail to any jail in Punjab.

The Court noted the necessity of the Chandigarh Administration because Hawara was tried and lodged in Budhail Jail in Chandigarh, from where he was subsequently shifted to Delhi. The petitioner has been asked to implead the UT administration as a party.

The Court has directed the NCT of Delhi and Union to also file a reply along with the Chandigarh Administration within 4 weeks.

'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant

Case Details: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for alleging that the Court recorded in its order a statement by the lawyer, even though the lawyer never made such a statement.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made against the Court. “We are shocked to read allegations made in the applications. The allegation made is that, though we have recorded statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, in fact, no such statement was made before us. We are shocked to know that such allegations are being made against the court, and that also in absence of the lawyers who were present on that day."

The Bench strongly condemned the allegations, stating, "This is an allegation directly made against the court, that we have recorded a statement which was not made across the bar. We deprecate such tendency on the part of the applicants. Moreover, the advocates who appeared on that day have not shown their face today."

The Court dictated that it was imposing a cost ot Rs 5 lakhs on the Corporation for making such allegations.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Police Protection To Discovery Channel Officials From Threats Received For Documentary On Asaram Bapu

Case Details: Shashank Walia and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 70/2025

The Supreme Court granted interim police protection to the officials and property of Discovery Communications India over the threats faced by the broadcasting channel in relation to the documentary on self-styled godman Asaram Baapu.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the plea filed by the top officials of Discovery India which stated that after the release of the show titled 'Cult of Fear- Asaram Bapu', several hate comments against Discovery and persons associated with it were received on the social media accounts of the Broadcasters.

Supreme Court Entrusts Charge Of Kabbadi Federation To Elected Body; Asks Centre To Ensure Participation Of Indian Team In Asian Championship

Case Details: Priyanka & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors | WP(C) 93/2015

The Supreme Court asked the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to ensure that Indian Kabbadi players are allowed to participate in the Asian Kabbadi Championship to be held in Iran from February 20 to 25.

The Court also requested Justice(Retired) SP Garg, who was appointed by the Delhi High Court as the administrator of the Amateur Kabbadi Federation of India (AKFI), to hand over the charge of the Federation to the governing body said to have been elected in the election held on December 24, 2023, to administer the AKFI. The Court said that it was passing this order considering the urgency of the participation of Indian players in the Senior Asian Kabbadi Championship(Women) 2025 scheduled to be held in Iran from February 20 to February 25.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order in a writ petition filed by women players Priyanka and Pooja seeking permission to participate in the Asian Kabbadi Championship. Their participation came under a cloud as the AKFI was suspended by the International Kabbadi Federation on the ground that it was not being managed by an elected body.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Police Investigation On Statements Before Justice Hema Committee Regarding Women's Exploitation In Malayalam Cinema

Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024,

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the directions of the Kerala High Court to register FIRs based on the depositions given by witnesses/victims before the Justice Hema Committee regarding the sexual exploitation of women in the Malayalam cinema field.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that once an information regarding the commission of cognizable offence is received, the police officer is bound to proceed under the law and that there cannot be a direction to injunct the police's powers to investigate.

The bench pronounced the order disposing of the Special Leave Petitions filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actors challenging the direction issued by the Kerala High Court in October last year.

'Nobody Gets Better Treatment Because Of Senior Gown': Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Delhi HC's Senior Designations

Case Details: Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Ors. v. The Full Court of The Honble Judges of The High Court of Delhi and Ors., Diary No. 60205-2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court to confer senior designations on 70 advocates.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter.

'Go To HC': Supreme Court Disposes Of Contempt Petition Filed Against UP Authorities Over Demolition Of Property At Sambhal

Case Details: Mohammed Ghayoor v. Rajender Pensiya and Ors., Diary No. 2651 of 2025

Granting liberty to approach the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court disposed of a contempt petition filed against Uttar Pradesh authorities for alleged violation of order dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,

"We find that the issue can be best addressed by the jurisdictional High Court. We therefore dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court."

NEET-PG 2024 | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Fresh AIQ Round 3 Counselling

Case Details: Joshi Ankit and Ors. v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 103/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) to conduct AIQ (All India Quota) Round III of NEET-PG 2024 counselling afresh on the ground that there were instances of seat blocking following delay in completion of 2nd round of state counselling in Madhya Pradesh.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. Not inclined to pass directions with regard to petitioners' prayer for participation in stray round of counselling, Justice Gavai said, "Very complicated...If we entertain the petition of these 3 (petitioners), we will have another 30...some casualties are there...this was a problem only in Madhya Pradesh, it was not a problem in other states".

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Provisions Allowing Outstation Students To Vote In Their Place Of Study

Case Details: Arnab Kumar Mullick v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 000215 - / 2024

The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the electoral manual provisions allowing students studying out of their constituency to transfer their names from the electoral rolls to the place of their education.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the matter.

Justice Kumar explained that for students studying outside their resident constituency, the only option they have is either they travel to back to the enrolled constituency for voting or have their electoral enrolment shifted to the constituency one is studying within.

Other Developments

BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | 'What Would Be A Reasonable Period To Decide Disqualification Pleas?' Supreme Court Asks Telangana Assembly

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

In a petition filed by Telangana MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy (BRS) pertaining to the defection of 3 MLAs from his party to the ruling Congress party, the Supreme Court asked the State Legislative Assembly as to what would be a "reasonable period" for deciding the disqualification pleas filed against the defecting MLAs.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih listed the matter on February 10, asking Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly) to get instructions from the Speaker. "You tell us what is reasonable time in your perception", said Justice Gavai.

'Protection Was Not There On Date Of Offence': Supreme Court Questions Former Karnataka CM's HD Kumaraswamy's Plea

Case Details: H. D. Kumarswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6740/2020

The Supreme Court briefly heard a Special Leave Petition filed against the Karnataka High Court's order refusing to quash a criminal case registered against former Chief Minister of Karnataka, H D Kumaraswamy, in which it is alleged that he denotified two different plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), during his tenure as Chief Minister between June 2006 and October 2007, for pecuniary gains.

Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Chairperson Of Bihar Public Service Commission

Case Details: Brajesh Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors| W.P.(C) No. 62/2025

The Supreme Court issued notice in a writ petition filed by Advocate and petitioner-in-person Brajesh Singh for declaring the appointment of Bihar Public Service Commission Chairperson, Parmar Ravi Manubhai, as "completely illegal" and "arbitrary" on grounds that the appointment has taken place defying the mandate of Article 316(Appointment and term of office of members) of the Constitution of India.

'Very Pertinent Issue': Supreme Court To Hear PIL Against RP Act Provision Allowing Election Of Uncontested Candidate On Mar 19

Case Details: Vidhi Centre For Legal Policy v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 677/2024

The Supreme Court listed on March 19 the public interest litigation challenging Section 53(2) of the Representation of the People Act ("RP Act"), which provides for direct election of candidates in uncontested elections i.e. without conduct of a poll.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, giving time to the Union to file a counter-affidavit. Posting the matter after the Holi break, Justice Kant orally remarked that a "very pertinent issue" has been raised in the PIL.

Can Special NIA Court Designated As MP/MLA Court Hear Cases Against Other Accused ? Delhi High Court Seeks Clarification From Supreme Court

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI W.P.(C) No. 699/2016

The Delhi High Court has approached the Supreme Court seeking clarification in the 2017 directions by the Supreme Court for setting up Special Courts for the trials of Members of Parliament/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MPs/MLAs).

The application filed through the Registrar General of Delhi High Court seeks clarification on "Whether the Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 , if designated as a Special MP/MLA Court, would be restricted to adjudicate only those cases involving MPs/MLAs under the said Statute or whether it can concurrently exercise its jurisdiction over other offenders as per its existing statutory mandate and can decide those cases parallelly with the cases having MP/MLA as an accused."

'Why TN Governor Unable To Decide On Bills & Referring Them To President? We Want To Know': Supreme Court Hears Tamil Nadu Govt's Pleas

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023

The Supreme Court heard the two writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Governor, Dr. RN Ravi, for withholding assent for the bills(some of which relate to removing the Governor from the post of Vice-Chancellor of the various universities) passed by the Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023. They were submitted for the Governor's assent between January 13, 2020, and April 28, 2023.

Several files relating to the decision of the Government regarding the grant of premature release of prisoners, sanction for prosecution and the appointment of members of the Tamil Nadu Service Commission are also pending approval before the Governor. They were submitted between April 10, 2022 and 15 May, 2023.

As the bench was about to rise, Justice Pardiwala told AG to make efforts to resolve the issue "over a cup of coffee" in the next twenty-four hours. If there is no breakthrough, the matter will be decided as per merits, the judge said.

SCAORA Submits Suggestions To Supreme Court On Guidelines For AORs, Reforms Of Senior Designation Process

Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) has filed suggestions before the Supreme Court regarding the code of conduct for the Advocates-on-Record and senior designation process.

The Court took up these issues in a case arising out of false statements and the suppression of material facts made by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas.

As per the suggestions, the SCAORA has stated that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) & (2023)- which laid down objective parameters for senior designations- have, to a great extent, democratised and streamlined the process of senior designation. At the same time, the Association has suggested some tweaks in the process.

'Only Issue Is Whether PUCL Guidelines Were Complied': Supreme Court In Plea Alleging 'Fake' Encounters In Assam

Case Details: Arif Md Yasin Jwadder v. State of Assam and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 7929/2023

While hearing a case raising the issue of 'fake' encounters in Assam, the Supreme Court indicated that the only issue to be considered is whether the guidelines laid down by it in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra (pertaining to investigation of police encounters) were complied with or not.

"We are not going to form any opinion on merits. We can't...Only limited issue is compliance of PUCL guidelines, that's all", said Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a special leave petition filed against a Gauhati High Court order, whereby the petitioner's PIL raising the same issue was dismissed. Reportedly, the High Court was of the view that no separate probe into the alleged incidents was required, as state authorities were conducting investigation in each case.

BRS Moves Supreme Court For Early Decision By Telangana Speaker On Disqualification Pleas Against 7 MLAs Who Defected To Congress

Case Details: Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao and Ors. v. The Speaker Telangana State Legislative Assembly and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 82/2025

Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and its MLAs moved the Supreme Court assailing the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed in respect of 7 MLAs who contested the 2023 Assembly elections on BRS ticket but later joined the ruling Congress party in the state.

The MLAs (Respondent Nos. 2 to 8) whose defection is assailed by the petitioners include: Srinivas Reddy Parigi, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, T. Prakash Goud, A. Gandhi, Gudem Mahipal Reddy and M. Sanjay Kumar.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran listed the case alongwith a plea filed by Telangana MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy (BRS) pertaining to the defection of 3 MLAs (Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagender) from BRS to Congress, where response has been sought from the Telangana Assembly Speaker as to what would be "reasonable period" in his perception for deciding the disqualification pleas.

'TN Governor Seems To Have Adopted His Own Procedure': Supreme Court Questions Governor RN Ravi For Withholding Bills

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023

The Supreme Court asked why the Tamil Nadu Governor sat over the bills enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly for over three years before declaring that he was withholding assent and referring some of them to the President.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan asked the Attorney General for India R Venkataramani why the Governor took so long to send the bills to the President in the name of repugnancy.

"What is something so gross in the bills which the Governor took 3 years to find?" Justice Pardiwala asked. The bench also pointed out that the Governor referred two bills to the President after the assembly re-enacted the bills.

"He says, 'I withhold assent, but I will not ask you to reconsider the bill'. It does not make sense to keep withholding assent and not send to the legislature thereby frustrating the proviso of Article 200. He seems to have adopted his own procedure," Justice Pardiwala said.

How Can Advocate-on-Record Authorise A Non-AoR To Argue On His Behalf? Supreme Court Asks

The Supreme Court asked an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) how he could ask another lawyer, who was not an AoR, to act on his behalf.

A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the matter.

During the hearing, when the bench asked the advocate appearing for the appellant, whether he was an Advocate on Record for the present case, he answered in the negative. The bench was informed that since the AoR concerned could not appear for the hearing in person, his colleague was present to argue on his behalf.

Justice Trivedi then posed to the AoR concerned appearing virtually :

"Have you read the Supreme Court Rules?Which rule permits the AoR to authorise another advocate to argue?”

UP Govt Offers To Administer Mathura Temples Which Are Under Receivership Of Advocates, Seeks Supreme Court's Permission

Case Details: Ishwar Chanda Sharma v. Devendra Kumar Sharma & Ors., Diary No. 52096/2024

In a case where the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the appointment of advocates as court receivers of various temples in Mathura, the State of Uttar Pradesh requested the Court to hand over the temples' management to the State during the pendency of the civil suits.

Jayalalithaa's Niece Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Return Of Her Properties Confiscated In Disproportionate Assets Case

The niece of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has approached the Supreme Court seeking the return of the properties confiscated in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa.

J Deepa has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Karnataka High Court's order refusing to release Jayalalithaa's assets to her.

The petitioner's argument is that since the criminal case against Jayalalithaa got abated following her death in December 2016, her assets seized during the proceedings have to be released.

'If Governor Feels Bills Are Repugnant, Should He Not Tell Govt Immediately?': Supreme Court Asks In Tamil Nadu Case

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023

The Supreme Court asked if the Tamil Nadu Governor could simply sit over the bills passed by the Assembly based on his own perception that they were repugnant to the Central laws, without communicating his opinion to the Government.

The Court asked if it was not incumbent on the Governor to return the bills to the Assembly as soon as possible, in terms of the first proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, if he felt that they were repugnant.

The Court also observed during the hearing that an "impasse" has been created as the President has also returned the bills saying that they are repugnant. It said that the Court will go into the factual question if the bills were repugnant and decide it, if need arose.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the writ petitions filed by the State Government in 2023 aggrieved by the Governor's refusal to grant assent for twelve bills, the oldest among them pending since January 2020.