As we step into August, it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of July 2025 of the Supreme Court. This monthly recap below lists a series of significant rulings that have shaped legal discourse across various domains.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: As we step into August, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of July 2025. This month saw a series of significant rulings that have influenced legal discourse across various fields, including constitutional law, criminal justice, corporate regulations, and human rights. From Supreme Court verdicts establishing new precedents to High Court rulings with wide-ranging implications, these decisions continue to shape and evolve the legal landscape.
In this monthly recap, we examine the most important judgments of July 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
ALSO READ: Irish Supreme Court Judge Justice Gerard Hogan Visits India’s Supreme Court
No Compensation if Accident Caused by Deceased’s Own Negligence
The Supreme Court of India ruled that insurance companies are not liable to compensate the family of a person who dies in an accident caused solely by their own rash and negligent driving.
The case involved NS Ravisha, a resident of Karnataka, who died in a self-caused car accident on June 18, 2014, while driving from Mallasandra village to Arasikere town with his family. The police charge sheet confirmed that Ravisha was driving at high speed and carelessly, resulting in the accident.
His family sought Rs. 80 lakh in compensation from United India Insurance Company. However, both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court dismissed the claim, citing the deceased’s contributory negligence.
Upholding the lower courts’ decisions, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan reaffirmed that if an accident is solely due to the deceased’s own fault, and no external factor is involved, the insurer is not obligated to pay compensation.
The Court stated,
“If a person dies in a road accident due to their own fault, the insurance company is not obligated to pay compensation to the deceased’s family.”
The bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition, stating it found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment.
Case Title: G. NAGARATHNA & ORS. vs G. MANJUNATHA & ANR.
Diary No: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 22411/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Slams Private Medical Colleges: “Stop Collection Of Extra Fees From Students Or Else…”
In the final judgment delivered on 19 May 2022 in Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust & Ors. v. Committee for Fixation of Fee Structure of Private Professional Colleges & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3978–3995 of 2017), the Supreme Court of India upheld the authority of State Fee Fixation Committees to regulate the fee structure of private medical colleges and dismissed the appeals filed by college managements challenging such regulation.
The Court expressed deep concern over the persistent menace of capitation fees and issued comprehensive directions to curb such illegal practices.
It mandated the creation of a centralized web portal for students to anonymously report demands for capitation fees, prohibited cash payments to ensure accountability, and required complete transparency in NEET-based counseling and admissions, including the publication of names and ranks of students admitted in all rounds.
The Court emphasized that all components of the fee, including tuition, development, and miscellaneous charges, must be pre-approved by the Fee Committee, and no unauthorized charges shall be levied.
The Court ruled that,
“Private institutions are permitted to retain these funds for creating their own corpus specifically aimed at subsidizing the education of BPL students. However, if the state of Kerala wishes to establish its own corpus fund to aid students from economically weaker sections, it must do so through proper legislative mechanisms.”
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Upholds Man’s Right: “He Has Right to Say ‘NO’ Over Woman’s Aggressive Sexual Behaviour” | Rape FIR Quashed
In the case of Batlanki Keshav Kesava Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2879 of 2025), the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment on 29 May 2025, quashing two FIRs registered against the appellant, one under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, and the other under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Court found that the complainant’s allegations were inconsistent and contradictory, particularly as the later FIR included events predating those mentioned in the first FIR, which had originally claimed a single incident of sexual assault.
The Court also relied on WhatsApp chats submitted in evidence, observing that the complainant’s conduct appeared manipulative and vindictive, with no prima facie case of rape on false promise of marriage or caste-based atrocity.
“These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendency.”
Holding that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to a miscarriage of justice and abuse of process, the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that both FIRs and all related proceedings be quashed in their entirety.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Secret Recording of Conversations of Spouses Can be Used in Matrimonial Cases”: Supreme Court
In the case of Vibhor Garg v. Neha, the Supreme Court ruled that secretly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted as evidence in matrimonial disputes such as divorce proceedings. The Court held that while the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to a fair trial.
It clarified that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which protects spousal communications, does not apply when one spouse is litigating against the other. The recordings, if authentic and relevant, can demonstrate issues like cruelty or breakdown of trust in marriage. This judgment sets a landmark precedent in family law, expanding the evidentiary scope in matrimonial cases.
The Court said,
“When we weigh the respective rights of the parties in a trial within the parameters of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, we do not think that there is any breach of right to privacy in the instant case.. In fact, Section 122 of the aforesaid Act does not recognise such a right at all.”
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the High Court in CR No.1616 of 2020 (O&M), and restored the order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhatinda.
The Supreme Court directed the Family Court to take on record the supplementary affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief, along with the memory card/chip of the mobile phones, compact disc (CD), and the transcript of the conversation recorded therein for the relevant period, and consider the same as evidence by law.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Court places on record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus, Ms. Vrinda Grover. The Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as honorarium for her services. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: “High Courts Have Authority to Suo Motu Designate Senior Advocates”
In Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, the Supreme Court set aside a 2019 ruling of the Orissa High Court that had invalidated Rule 6(9) of the High Court’s Senior Advocate Rules. This rule empowered the Full Court to suo motu designate lawyers as Senior Advocates—without requiring an application or judge’s recommendation.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld both the validity of Rule 6(9) and the 2019 designations of five lawyers under the suo motu process. The Court cited its recent judgment in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi (May 2025), reaffirming that suo motu designations are valid if they adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity.
The 2021 High Court ruling had previously struck down the rule, relying on the Indira Jaising judgment, which recognized only two routes to designation: a judge’s proposal or a lawyer’s application. However, the HC did not cancel the designations of the five lawyers, acknowledging their merit and stating it would be unfair to penalize them.
The Supreme Court concluded that Rule 6(9) will remain in force until replaced by new regulations, and the designations already conferred would continue to be valid.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Cancels 1,158 Teacher and Librarian Appointments in Punjab
On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of 1,158 Assistant Professors and Librarians in Punjab, labelling the recruitment process as “totally arbitrary”, lacking fairness, transparency, and adherence to UGC norms.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s 2024 decision, which had upheld the appointments. The SC was acting on petitions filed by multiple candidates who had raised concerns over the legitimacy of the 2021 recruitment drive.
The Court criticised the use of a purely MCQ-based written test, without viva voce, for assessing teaching ability. It held that such a limited method fails to evaluate academic depth, innovative thinking, and communication—skills vital for educators in higher education.
Key observations included:
- UGC-mandated selection processes were ignored.
- The viva-voce, a crucial component, was unjustly eliminated.
- The sudden change in recruitment procedure lacked consultation with the state’s council of ministers.
- The process was rushed, possibly for political expediency, undermining both quality and merit.
The Court strongly reaffirmed that government appointments must be reasoned, fair, and not made in undue haste, stating that arbitrary decisions violate constitutional principles.
Concluding, the bench emphasized:
“Impartiality, fairness and recognition of merit while selecting public servants are absolutely necessary in modern democracies.”
The Court directed the Punjab government to conduct fresh recruitment in line with UGC guidelines within six months. This ruling is expected to significantly influence public recruitment standards across the country, particularly in the education sector.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“However Dark the Past May Be, It Cannot Hold the Future Captive”: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has officially brought closure to a long-standing and emotionally fraught matrimonial dispute between IPS officer Shivangi Bansal (also known as Shivangi Goel) and her ex-husband Sahib Bansal. Exercising its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court:
- Dissolved the marriage, which was solemnized in 2015, and had been troubled since their separation in 2018.
- Quashed over 30 litigations (civil, criminal, tax-related, etc.) filed by both parties and even third parties over the years.
- Directed Shivangi Bansal and her parents to issue an unconditional public apology to her former in-laws for the distress caused by multiple legal proceedings.
The apex court’s order, passed on July 22, 2025, came after both parties mutually agreed to settle all disputes, including custody and property matters.
Key directives from the Court included:
- Child custody remains with Shivangi Bansal, with visitation rights to the father.
- Shivangi waived all rights to alimony and property, both movable and immovable.
- ₹1.5 lakh monthly maintenance previously ordered by the Allahabad High Court was set aside.
- Shivangi and her family must publish an apology in leading newspapers and on social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, YouTube).
The apology emphasized regret for past actions and a desire for peace and closure, while also clarifying it was not an admission of guilt.
Additional orders:
- Removal of adverse remarks against Shivangi by the Allahabad High Court.
- Both parties are barred from interfering in each other’s personal, professional, or social lives.
- All social media allegations or interviews targeting each other must be deleted.
- Shivangi is barred from using her official IPS position to harm her ex-husband or his family in any manner.
The Supreme Court bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih ensured that the settlement upheld dignity, emotional well-being, and legal finality for both parties.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Allows Even Non-Consumers To Raise PIL Before Electricity Commissions: “Bringing Relevant Information, A Public Function”
The Supreme Court, in Torrent Power vs UP Electricity Regulatory Commission, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, upheld the authority of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to entertain petitions filed by any person, not just consumers, if the matter involves public interest.
This decision came in response to an appeal by Torrent Power Limited, which challenged an earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) affirming a 2012 petition filed by a private individual before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC). The petitioner had sought an investigation into the distribution franchisee agreement between Torrent Power and Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd in Agra.
Torrent argued that only consumers had the right to approach the Commission under the Electricity Act, 2003. This contention was rejected at all three levels—UPERC, APTEL, and now the Supreme Court.
The Court clarified that under Sections 128 and 129 of the Act, State Commissions have the power to act suo motu or based on credible information provided by any person—even a non-consumer—if the issue affects regulatory concerns or public interest. These powers are regulatory and fact-finding, not meant for private disputes.
Rejecting Torrent’s claim that the franchisee agreement was a purely private matter, the Court held that franchisee operations directly impact consumers, making them subject to regulatory oversight. It also endorsed UPERC’s decision to form an expert committee to investigate the franchisee’s performance.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed Torrent Power’s appeal, affirming the powers of electricity regulators to protect broader consumer interests and maintain oversight over franchisee models.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: “Rehabilitation Not Always Necessary, Monetary Compensation Alone Enough in Land Acquisition”
The Supreme Court clarified that rehabilitation through plot allotment is not a legal entitlement in every land acquisition case. The Court held that fair monetary compensation alone is legally sufficient, except in extremely rare cases where acquisition leads to absolute insolvency or irreparable livelihood loss.
The Court was hearing a dispute involving resettlement rights under Haryana’s rehabilitation schemes of 1992 and 2016 (as amended in 2018). Landowners had claimed a right to residential plots after their land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). However, the Court rejected their claim under the 1992 scheme, citing delayed legal action—filed nearly two decades after the acquisition award.
Key Observations:
- Rehabilitation is not automatic: Additional allotments or benefits beyond compensation are not legally guaranteed, and are subject to the State’s policy discretion guided by fairness, not compulsion.
- Monetary compensation is primary: Unless a case falls into the “rarest of the rare” category, monetary compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is adequate.
- Caution against appeasement policies: The Court warned states against introducing rehabilitation schemes merely for populism, which often leads to litigation and misuse.
- Policy misuse prevention: Authorities must stay alert to fraudulent claims and cartels attempting to misuse land allotment provisions.
- Transfer restriction imposed: Any plot allotted under such policies must carry a 5-year non-transfer condition, enforceable only with permission from the competent authority.
The landowners were not granted allotment under the 1992 scheme, but were allowed to apply under the 2016 policy within 4 weeks. The State was directed to decide its applications within 8 weeks. The ruling reinforces that rehabilitation plots are for resettlement, not resale or profiteering.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court: “Prisoners Not Getting Expensive Food Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights”
On July 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India held that prisoners, including those with disabilities, cannot claim the right to receive their preferred or expensive food items while serving a sentence. The Court emphasized that such demands do not amount to a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that the State’s obligation is limited to providing adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food as per certified medical needs, not indulgent meals.
The case arose from a petition by advocate L. Muruganantham, who suffers from Becker muscular dystrophy and alleged denial of protein-rich food like eggs and chicken during imprisonment. While the Court acknowledged the poor state of prison infrastructure, particularly for disabled inmates, it clarified that the non-supply of non-essential food does not violate constitutional rights unless it causes actual harm.
The judgment also highlighted the outdated nature of prison manuals and urged reforms to ensure proper medical care, assistive devices, and rehabilitation for inmates with disabilities. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Rs 5 lakh compensation previously awarded to Muruganantham but rejected the demand for specific dietary rights, reiterating that prisons are for reformation, not personal comfort.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Aided Teachers Are ‘Akin to Government Staff”: Supreme Court Says Gratuity Claim Falls Under State Rules, Not Gratuity Act
The Supreme Court ruled that teachers in government-aided schools are, in effect, government employees, since their posts are sanctioned by the State and salaries are government-funded. Therefore, such teachers are entitled to service benefits, including pension, provident fund, and gratuity, under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, Vikram Ghongade, approached the Court seeking gratuity as the son and nominee of a deceased aided school teacher. His claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was earlier rejected by lower authorities and the High Court. He contended that since he had already received provident fund dues as a nominee, a legal heirship certificate should not be required. He also relied on the Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand decision, which recognized teachers’ entitlement under the Gratuity Act.
The State argued that gratuity is payable under the 1982 Rules, not the 1972 Act, and required a legal heirship certificate, especially since the teacher’s estranged husband (also a legal heir) was still alive.
The Supreme Court clarified that the 1982 Rules are more beneficial than the 1972 Act, as they do not require a minimum of five years of service and provide for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) even in cases of early death. The Court held that there cannot be two different gratuity regimes for government and aided school teachers.
While noting that estrangement does not bar a spouse’s legal claim, the Court allowed the petitioner’s plea and directed him to apply for DCRG under the 1982 Rules, along with a notarized indemnity affidavit protecting the State and school management from future legal heir claims.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Major Ruling: “Companies Can Be Victims Under Criminal Law” | What It Means For Indian Businesses Or Corporate Sectors?
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted relief to Asian Paints Ltd. and broadened the scope of who qualifies as a “victim” under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case arose from a 2016 incident in Rajasthan where counterfeit paint products were found being sold under Asian Paints’ brand name.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC includes not just natural persons but also juristic persons like companies. As such, corporate entities have the right to appeal an acquittal in criminal cases, independent of the State’s appeal and without needing to file under Section 378 CrPC.
In the case, the trial court had convicted the accused, Rambabu, for selling fake products, but he was later acquitted by the appellate court. When Asian Paints challenged the acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the Rajasthan High Court rejected the appeal on the ground that the company wasn’t the original complainant. The Supreme Court overturned this, clarifying that being a complainant is not a prerequisite to being recognized as a victim under CrPC.
The Court emphasized that Asian Paints had suffered reputational and financial harm due to the counterfeit goods and had full legal standing to file the appeal. It ruled that the proviso to Section 372 grants a substantive and independent right to victims, including companies, to appeal an acquittal without requiring special permission.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Clears West Bengal to Reclaim Iconic Ambassador Car Factory Land from Hindustan Motors
On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the West Bengal government’s decision to resume 395 acres of land previously allotted to Hindustan Motors Limited in Uttarpara, Hooghly, land that once housed the iconic Ambassador car plant.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan dismissed Hindustan Motors’ appeal against a May 2025 Calcutta High Court judgment, which had upheld the legality of the State’s resumption order under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act.
The Supreme Court found no merit in Hindustan Motors’ arguments and refused to interfere with the High Court’s findings, particularly noting that the land had remained unused for decades. The Court also upheld the constitutional validity of Explanation II to the proviso of Section 6(3), which formed the basis of the government’s decision.
The State argued that Hindustan Motors had made no attempts to use the land for industrial purposes, justifying the takeover in the larger public interest.
The Court’s decision aligns with the State’s recent policy shift toward productive use of dormant industrial land. Notably, just days before the judgment, 40 acres of the resumed land were leased to Titagarh Rail Systems to set up a modern coach manufacturing facility, expected to be the largest in Asia outside China.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Contract Rules Supreme: SC Says CERC Tariff Cap Can’t Override State’s Right to Free Power
On July 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the State of Himachal Pradesh, reaffirming that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) tariff regulations cannot override a contractual agreement between a state and a private power producer.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi allowed the State’s appeal and overturned a 2024 Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling that had favored JSW Hydro Energy Limited. The dispute centered around JSW’s request to reduce its contractual free power supply obligation from 18% to 13%, citing CERC’s 2019 tariff regulations.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that:
- The CERC regulations do not prohibit supplying free power beyond 13%;
- The Implementation Agreement, under which JSW had agreed to supply 18% free electricity from 2023 to 2051, remains binding and valid;
- This free supply is not a tariff issue, but a form of compensation for use of public resources like land and river water.
The Court criticized the High Court for interfering in a domain that falls under the exclusive authority of the CERC and emphasized that regulatory interpretations should be handled by expert bodies like CERC and APTEL, not through writ petitions.
Importantly, the Court also noted that JSW had not challenged the 2022 CERC order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, and instead sought relief through the High Court—a move the Supreme Court found legally inappropriate.
The Apex Court concluded that JSW must honor its original contractual obligation and continue supplying 18% of the generated power free of cost to the State, upholding the sanctity of the agreement.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Child Developed Stress Due To Separation From Mother”: Supreme Court Reverses Order Granting Custody To Father
In a child custody dispute, N vs R, the Supreme Court emphasized that custody orders are not rigid or final and must evolve in the best interest of the child. The case involved a 12-year-old boy raised by his mother since infancy. After their divorce in 2015, the mother retained custody.
In 2023, the High Court granted custody to the father, citing concerns over relocation abroad. The Supreme Court initially upheld this order in August 2024. However, following a review petition supported by fresh psychological evaluations showing the child’s emotional distress, the Court reversed its earlier decision.
It held that the welfare of the child is paramount and recognized that separation from the mother would cause psychological harm. The Court reinstated the Family Court’s 2022 order granting custody to the mother, allowed structured visitation to the father, barred relocation abroad except during school vacations, and ordered counselling and periodic psychological assessments.
The judgment reaffirmed that custody matters remain open to review based on changing circumstances affecting the child’s welfare.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Rape Is Undoubtedly a Heinous Offence, But Justice Has No Rigid Formula”: Supreme Court Quashes Case After Settlement
In Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that even serious offences like rape under Section 376 IPC may be quashed in rare and exceptional cases where the complainant has voluntarily settled the matter and continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose.
The case involved two FIRs, one for assault and the other for rape, filed consecutively in November 2023. The woman later submitted an affidavit stating she had no objection to quashing the cases, having received Rs 5,00,000 for marriage-related expenses as part of a settlement, and wished to move on with her life.
The Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIRs, citing the seriousness and non-compoundable nature of rape. However, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, noting the consensual settlement and the complainant’s consistent stance, held that rigid refusal to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC would cause more harm.
Emphasizing that justice must account for the unique facts of each case, the Court quashed both FIRs to prevent unnecessary distress and legal burden.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Declares: Tribal Women Have Equal Right to Ancestral Property – Custom Can’t Override Equality
On July 17, in a crucial ruling advancing gender equality, the Supreme Court held that a tribal woman and her legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property. The verdict, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, overturned the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, which had denied inheritance rights on the basis that tribal customs did not explicitly support such succession.
The case involved the heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman who sought partition of her late father’s property. Lower courts rejected the claim, citing the absence of proof that tribal customs allowed inheritance through female lineage. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that denying rights based solely on the lack of customary evidence was discriminatory and outdated.
The bench stressed that customs must evolve with time and cannot be used to exclude women unjustly. Referring to constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 15(1), the Court said any gender-based discrimination in inheritance, especially without legal prohibition, violates the right to equality.
Further, the Court noted that in the absence of clear customary or statutory restrictions, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience must prevail. As a result, the woman’s legal heirs were held entitled to their rightful share in the ancestral property, ensuring a progressive interpretation of law for Scheduled Tribe women.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take Place of Proof”: Supreme Court
In a crucial judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction for murder passed by the Delhi High Court, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s presence or role beyond reasonable doubt.
The case arose from a property dispute involving the deceased and the appellants’ mother. After a quarrel over construction, the man was found dead days later. The trial court acquitted some accused due to lack of evidence. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal of Rahil and Noor Ahmed, relying on circumstantial evidence such as call detail records (CDRs) and assumptions of presence.
The Supreme Court ruled that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof in a criminal trial. It held that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) relied upon by the prosecution were inadmissible under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act due to the absence of mandatory electronic certification.
The Court further observed that cell tower location data merely indicates approximate presence and cannot conclusively establish an accused’s presence at the scene of crime. Criticizing the High Court’s speculative reasoning, the Bench noted that it had wrongly invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act by shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. Reaffirming the legal standard, the Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence, particularly after an acquittal by the trial court, must not be lightly overturned.
The Bench emphasized that appellate interference in acquittals should only occur when the lower court’s findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Accordingly, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Declares: ‘Legal Heirs Cannot Be Denied Their Right, Burden Of Proof Is On The Party Disputing’
In Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Others vs. Metpalli Muthaiah (Deceased) by Legal Representatives, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015, the Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment reinforcing the coparcenary rights of daughters under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The case stemmed from a long-standing family dispute concerning ancestral property. The appellants, daughters of the deceased Muthaiah, claimed entitlement to an equal share as coparceners, asserting that no valid partition had occurred during their father’s lifetime. In contrast, the respondents argued that an oral partition among male members had already taken place and thus barred the daughters’ claim.
Upon review, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the daughters, holding that the alleged partition was not supported by any documentary evidence or corroborative proof and therefore could not override the appellants’ statutory rights. The Court observed,
“There is absolutely no documentary evidence on record to indicate that there was a partition as pleaded. Oral partition set up is neither established nor reliable.”
It reaffirmed that mere assertions of oral partition cannot defeat the equal inheritance rights granted to daughters post-2005.
The Court upheld the trial court’s decree granting Lasum Bai full rights over the suit schedule properties, including land previously sold to a third party, finding the trial court’s reasoning consistent with both evidence and legal principles. It also criticized the High Court for erroneously reducing the daughters’ share, setting aside its judgment dated 23rd January 2014, and restoring the trial court’s original decision dated 15th November 1994.
Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 5921 of 2015 was allowed, and Civil Appeal No. 5922 of 2015 was dismissed, without any order as to costs.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Her Roots, Her Rights. Equality Is Not A Custom, It’s A Constitutional Guarantee”: Supreme Court
In a landmark judgment dated July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the equal inheritance rights of tribal women, reinforcing the constitutional vision of gender justice. The case centered on Dhaiya, a woman from the Gond tribe in Chhattisgarh, who in 1992 had sought partition of her maternal grandfather’s ancestral property. Her claim was repeatedly denied by the Trial Court (2008), First Appellate Court (2009), and the Chhattisgarh High Court (2022), citing the absence of a codified or customary law allowing tribal women inheritance rights.
The Supreme Court reversed these rulings, stating that courts erred by placing the burden on the plaintiffs to prove a right, instead of requiring the defendants to prove a valid exclusionary custom. It held that in the absence of codified law or proven custom, courts must rely on justice, equity, and good conscience. The Court invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and warned against using outdated customs to justify gender discrimination.
Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court noted that equality is a dynamic concept, and asserted that “gender equality is intrinsic to the constitutional vision.” It also drew spirit from the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which seeks to remove gender-based exclusions in inheritance. Ultimately, the Court held that the appellants (legal heirs of Dhaiya) are entitled to equal shares in the ancestral property, set aside the previous rulings, and allowed the civil appeal—marking a significant stride toward substantive equality for tribal women.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Sudden Break in the Middle of a Highway Is Negligence”: Supreme Court
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that sudden braking by a car driver without any warning or indication on a highway amounts to negligence. The judgment came in the case of S. Mohammed Hakkim, a 20-year-old engineering student who suffered the amputation of his left leg after a car suddenly stopped in front of him, leading to a collision and him being run over by a bus.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded Rs 91.62 lakhs, which was reduced to Rs 58.53 lakhs by the Madras High Court, attributing more fault to Hakkim. On appeal, the Supreme Court revised the liability, holding the car driver 50% negligent, the bus driver 30% negligent, and Hakkim 20% negligent for not maintaining a safe distance under the Road Regulation Rules, 1989. The Court rejected the car driver’s explanation that his pregnant wife was nauseous, stating that stopping without warning on a highway breaches the duty of care.
For compensation, the Court revised Hakkim’s notional monthly income to Rs 20,000, acknowledging his academic prospects, and applied a 40% future prospects increase with a multiplier of 18, estimating a loss of future income at Rs 60.48 lakhs. It also restored attendant charges to Rs 18 lakhs (earlier reduced by the High Court), and enhanced compensation for loss of marital prospects to Rs 5 lakhs.
The total compensation stood at Rs 1,14,24,066, which, after deducting 20% for contributory negligence, amounted to Rs 91,39,253. The sum is to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim. Since both the car and bus were insured, the Court directed the car insurer to bear 50%, bus insurer 30%, and the remaining 20% by the appellant. The entire compensation is to be released within four weeks.
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap
