As we close out 2024, the Supreme Court delivered key rulings on topics including legal aid rights, temple property preservation, and criminal defense. The monthly recap for the month of December includes notable decisions , include the affirmation of the accused’s right to legal aid and clarifications on private defense in murder cases. Read more for concise summary of the most important judgments this month.
1)Right to get legal aid is accused’s fundamental right: SC issues directions on role of Public Prosecutors & appointment of legal aid lawyers
The Court observed the right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of the accused.
The Court emphasized that, when an accused is not represented by an Advocate, it is the duty of every Public Prosecutor to point out to the Court the requirement of providing him free legal aid. The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the High Court by which he was convicted for the offence of rape and murder.
Case Title: Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 919
Date of Judgment: December 2, 2024
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
2) Imperative to restore and protect temples and their properties with utmost care
The Court highlighted the need to restore, protect, and preserve temples and their properties while appointing a retired Judge of the Kerala High Court as the fresh Administrative Head to conduct elections for the administration and management of Kerala’s Oachira Parabrahma Temple.
The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of a temple, viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated at Kerala, preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala.
Case Title: Oachira Parabrahma Temple & Anr. v. G. Vijayanathakurup & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 922
Date of Judgment: December 3, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan
3) Information u/s. 27 Evidence Act must be proved by investigating officer as being voluntary & uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion
The Court reiterated that the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.
The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it dismissed his Appeal and affirmed the Judgment of the Family Court.
Case Title: Wadla Bheemaraidu v. State of Telangana
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 923
Date of Judgment: December 3, 2024
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta
4) ‘Reasons are heartbeat of every order’; show cause notice to employees must specify grounds on which authority intends to proceed
The Court held that a show cause notice to an employee must specify the grounds on which the administrative or quasi-judicial authority intends to proceed as reasons are the “heartbeat of every order.”
The Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which had upheld the termination of the Appellant, an Ophthalmic Assistant in the Health Department of West Bengal. The Bench restored the decision of the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which had held that the termination Order could not be sustained as it was done without following the principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to explain his case before the authority.
Case Title: Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 940
Date of Judgment: December 5, 2024
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice R. Mahadevan
5) When can private defense exception be invoked in a murder case?: Supreme Court explains
The Court, in a recent Judgment, explained the ingredients of the private defense exception in a murder case.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment by which the accused was convicted under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Title: Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 937
Date of Judgment: December 6, 2024
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
6) Supreme Court Directs States and Union Territories to Establish Dedicated Cells for Mercy Petitions
The Supreme Court has directed State Governments and Union Territories to constitute dedicated cells for handling mercy petitions. The directions were issued while adjudicating criminal appeals concerning the impact of delays in executing death sentences.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Pradeep Yashwant Kokade & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 947
Date of Judgment: December 9, 2024
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George
7) A Decision is Per Incuriam if Its Ratio Conflicts with a Judgment of a Co-equal or Larger Bench: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a judgment can be deemed per incuriam if its ratio cannot be reconciled with the reasoning of a previously delivered judgment by a co-equal or larger Bench.
This principle was reiterated while hearing a civil appeal challenging the decision of a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had allowed the writ petition filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC).
Case Title: Banwari and Others v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 951
Date of Judgment: December 10, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
8) Misuse of Section 498A IPC for Personal Vendetta Against Husband and Family: Supreme Court Expresses Concern
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, highlighting the increasing misuse of these provisions by wives as a tool for personal vendetta against their husbands and in-laws.
The Court emphasized that mere inclusion of family members’ names in matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations of their active involvement, should be curbed at the outset. The ruling came in response to an appeal challenging a Telangana High Court order that had refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated under these provisions.
Case Title: Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 953
Date of Judgment: December 10, 2024
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
9)Selling Wife’s Ornaments Followed by Discord Does Not Indicate Intent to Abet Suicide: Supreme Court Discharges Husband and In-laws Under Section 306 IPC
The Supreme Court discharged a husband and his in-laws from charges of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that the sale of the wife’s gold ornaments, followed by alleged discord and harassment, does not demonstrate any intent to “instigate, incite, or provoke” the deceased to take her own life. The Court partially allowed the appeal filed by the appellants, upholding charges under Section 498A IPC for cruelty while directing the trial to proceed on those grounds. It held that the evidence on record failed to establish the essential elements of abetment of suicide.
Case Title: Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 960
Date of Judgment: December 10, 2024
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
10) Conditioning a Gift on Perpetual Unpaid Services Amounts to Forced Labour: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a gift conditioned upon the perpetual rendering of services without remuneration constitutes “begar” or forced labour, which is not only unlawful but also unconstitutional, as it violates the fundamental rights of the donees. The ruling came in response to an appeal by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment. The High Court had allowed the second appeal of the respondents-defendants, overturning the concurrent decisions of the lower courts that had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 965
Date of Judgment: December 11, 2024
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
11) Conviction Based on Witness Testimony Unsupported by Credible Evidence is Impermissible: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused
The Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused, emphasizing that a conviction cannot rest on the testimony of a witness if the Court finds it difficult to believe that the witness could have observed the incident as narrated. If co-accused persons are granted the benefit of doubt based on the same witness’s evidence, convicting another accused solely on conjectures and surmises is not permissible.
The appeal challenged the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which had partly allowed the appellant’s criminal appeal while upholding his conviction under Sections 294(b), 341, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: George v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 974
Date of Judgment: December 13, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
12) 25 Years Imprisonment Without Remission is “Just Dessert”: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Sexual Assault and Murder Case
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old child, replacing it with 25 years of imprisonment without remission. The decision arose from a criminal appeal filed by the convict challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment, which had upheld his conviction and death sentence.
The three-judge bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, observed:
“Even though the appellant’s case falls short of the rarest of rare category, considering the nature of the crime, we strongly believe that a standard life imprisonment sentence of 14 years would be grossly inadequate and disproportionate. Given the gravity of the offence, only a sentence of imprisonment for a specified period without remission can be proportionate to the crime and maintain public confidence in the legal system. We, therefore, hold that 25 years of imprisonment without remission would be ‘a just dessert’.”
Case Title: Sambhubhai Raisangbhai v. State of Gujarat
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 987
Date of Judgment: December 17, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
13) Court Criticizes 128-Page Synopsis, Directs Registry to Ensure Trimming for Non-Lawyer Litigants
The Court remarked that the Registry should have instructed a litigant, who was not a trained lawyer, to reduce the length of a synopsis, which had expanded to 128 pages. The Court emphasized that such lengthy submissions are not acceptable and directed, “Let the Registrar (Judicial) take note of this, particularly in cases where litigants are allowed to appear in person.”
Case Title: D v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 991
Date of Judgment: December 17, 2024
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
14) Supreme Court Proposes Measures to Promote Sustainable Conservation of Sacred Groves and Empower Local Communities
The Supreme Court proposed a set of suggestions aimed at promoting the sustainable conservation of sacred groves and empowering the communities involved in their protection. This came while addressing an Interlocutory Application related to the preservation of sacred groves, also known as orans, in Rajasthan.
Case Title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 997
Date of Judgment: December 18, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, and Justice Sandeep Mehta
15) Pure Coconut Oil Packaged in Small Quantities Classified as ‘Edible Oil’ Under Central Excise Tariff Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that pure coconut oil, when packaged and sold in small quantities, should be classified as ‘edible oil’ under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that pure coconut oil sold in small quantities must be categorized under Heading 1513 of Section III, Chapter 15, in the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Court further clarified that this classification holds unless the packaging qualifies it as a cosmetic product under Heading 3305 of Section VI, Chapter 33.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (India) Private Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1002
Date of Judgment: December 18, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice R. Mahadevan
16) Lok Adalat and Mediation Are Distinct Methods and Cannot Be Equated, Clarifies Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Lok Adalat and mediation are two separate methods and should not be equated. The Court discussed the scope of court fee refund after a dispute settlement under Section 89 of the CPC. It clarified that while awards made by Lok Adalat are treated as decrees under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act), mediation settlements are governed exclusively by Section 89 of the CPC and are distinct from Lok Adalat awards.
Case Title: Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation 2024 INSC 1004
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
17) Supreme Court Upholds Grant of Property Share to Female Tribals, Clarifies Hindu Succession Act is Inapplicable to Scheduled Tribes
The Supreme Court upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision granting a share in the property to the daughters of a deceased member of the Sawara tribe, who passed away before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The High Court had applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in making this determination. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the Hindu Succession Act explicitly outlines its applicability and clarifies that it does not extend to scheduled castes and tribes.
Case Title: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1005
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Karol
18) Supreme Court Discusses Essential Requisites of a Gift Under Mohammedan Law
The Supreme Court examined the essential requisites of a gift under Mohammedan Law. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decisions regarding the validity of an alleged oral gift and the permissibility of partition under Mohammedan Law during the lifetime of the property owner.
Case Title: Mansoor Saheb (Dead) & Ors. v. Salima (D) By Lrs. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1006
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
19) Confession of Co-Accused Not Sufficient for Implicating Another Accused, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the confession statement of a co-accused, on its own, cannot serve as the basis for implicating another accused in a crime. This observation was made in a criminal appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had dismissed the application for discharge.
Case Title: Karan Talwar v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1012
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
20) Supreme Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Parents-In-Law, Cites Ulterior Motive for Pressuring Husband in Divorce
The Supreme Court quashed a cruelty case filed by a woman against her parents-in-law under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, noting that the proceedings were initiated with the ulterior motive of pressuring the husband to consent to divorce on the wife’s terms. The Court emphasized that the case was used as a tool in the personal discord between the couple. The appeal challenged the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a Section 482 application to quash the FIR filed against the husband and his parents-in-law.
Case Title: X v. State of Maharashtra & Another
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1019
Date of Judgment: December 20, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan
21) Consent Decree Does Not Require Stamp Duty When No New Right is Transferred, Rules Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that a consent decree does not function as a conveyance when no new right is transferred and, therefore, does not require the payment of stamp duty. The Court clarified that since the appellant only asserted a pre-existing right and no new right was created through the consent decree, the document related to the mutation of the subject land was not subject to stamp duty. The appeal challenged a Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which had upheld the Collector of Stamps’ determination of Rs. 6,67,500 stamp duty payable by the appellant concerning land acquired via the consent decree.
Case Title: Mukesh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1026
Date of Judgment: December 20, 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
22) Supreme Court Emphasizes Strict Interpretation of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
The Supreme Court observed that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects transferees in cases of part performance, serves as an exception to the usual requirement of written and registered contracts. This provision relaxes the strict requirements of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act to benefit transferees, allowing them to establish a defense of part performance. However, the Court emphasized that Section 53A must be strictly construed. The Court was addressing a petition arising from a Regular Second Appeal in which the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, thereby upholding the judgments of both the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court.
Case Title: Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1043
Date of Judgment: December 20, 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Click Here to Read Supreme Court Yearly Review
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
