As we step into November, it’s essential to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of October 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 November, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of October 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 October 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
Supreme Court Slams Courts Against Issuing “Surprise” Directions Beyond Litigant’s Pleadings
The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the importance of natural justice and judicial restraint, cautioning courts against issuing “surprise directions” that go beyond the issues raised in a case or the reliefs sought by the parties.
The judgment arose from a dispute between the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust over increased licence fees for land in Thrissur. The land, allotted in 1974 for building a hall, carried a nominal fee that remained unchanged for decades. In 2014, the Board suddenly raised the annual fee to ₹1.5 lakh and demanded arrears of over ₹20 lakh, prompting the Trust to challenge the move before the Kerala High Court.
The High Court upheld the fee hike but unexpectedly directed the Board to refix the fee and conduct a vigilance inquiry into the land allotment—orders that were never sought by the Trust.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction, warning that such unanticipated directions could discourage citizens from approaching courts for fear of adverse outcomes. The apex court struck down the High Court’s additional directions, stating that while the Board may revise the licence fee, it must do so lawfully and independently.
Case Title: P. Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11902 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Gift Under Mohammedan Law Doesn’t Need Writing: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that under Mohammedan Law, a gift (hiba) need not be in writing to be valid — an oral gift is equally valid if it meets three essential conditions:
- A clear intention by the donor to make the gift,
- Acceptance of the gift by the donee (recipient), and
- Delivery of possession — either actual or constructive.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti held that an oral gift fulfilling these requirements is “complete and irrevocable.” The Court emphasized that merely recording the gift in writing does not transform it into a formal instrument — the essence lies in delivery of possession, not documentation.
The Court explained that constructive possession can be shown through acts that demonstrate transfer of control, such as applying for mutation of ownership records in the donee’s name. Evidence of the donee exercising ownership is crucial to prove that possession was indeed transferred.
The ruling came in a dispute over agricultural land in Kusnoor village, Karnataka, involving an alleged oral gift. The Court reiterated that without clear proof of possession transfer, a gift remains incomplete, regardless of any written declaration.
Case Title: DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERS VERSUS SYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN
SLP (C) NO. 16996 OF 2022
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Mere Presence Isn’t Guilt”: Supreme Court Rules on Unlawful Assembly and Innocent Bystanders
The Supreme Court of India clarified that merely being present at a crime scene does not make someone a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC. A person can only be held liable if it is proven that they shared the assembly’s common object.
The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made this observation while acquitting 12 individuals serving life sentences in a 1988 Bihar murder case. The court emphasized that courts must carefully scrutinize evidence, especially in cases involving large groups, to avoid wrongful convictions of passive bystanders.
Section 149 states that every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in furtherance of its common object. The court clarified that “mere presence” does not establish membership unless the accused actively shared the assembly’s objective. Prosecution must prove, directly or indirectly, that the person shared the common object.
To determine whether someone is a passive onlooker or an active participant, courts should consider factors such as the assembly’s formation, member behavior, motive, sequence of events, weapons used, and injuries inflicted. Conviction should be based on credible evidence linking the individual to overt acts furthering the assembly’s objective.
Case Title: ZAINUL VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1187 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Ink & Chemicals Used in Lottery Ticket Printing Are Taxable: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that inks, chemicals, and other materials used in printing lottery tickets are liable for trade tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd., which printed lottery tickets, bought its own ink and chemicals. The Trade Tax Officer taxed these materials as part of a works contract. The company argued they were consumed in printing and not transferable goods. Lower authorities initially sided with the company for inks and chemicals, but the Allahabad High Court overturned this, ruling that these materials constitute a transfer of property and are taxable.
Supreme Court’s Analysis:
- Works Contracts Post-46th Amendment: Tax applies to the transfer of goods in a works contract, not the contract itself. Contracts are divisible into goods and services; the “dominant nature” test is obsolete.
- Deemed Sale: Goods transferred during a works contract, even if chemically altered or consumed, qualify as a deemed sale. Consumables like electricity or water do not.
- Conditions for Tax under Section 3F(1)(b):
- There must be a works contract.
- Goods must be used in executing the contract.
- Property in the goods must transfer to a third party.
Court Observations:
- Ink and chemicals become part of the final product (lottery ticket) and are thus transferred.
- Both ink and chemicals involve tangible property transfer.
- Any goods involved in executing a works contract, even if intangible in result, are taxable.
The Supreme Court upheld the tax liability, stating that all conditions under Section 3F(1)(b) are met, making Aristo Printers liable for trade tax.
Case Title: M/s. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 703 OF 2012
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict in Tamil Nadu 7-Year-Old Girl Killing Case: ‘Justice Cannot Survive Without Fair Trial’
The Supreme Court revisited a gruesome case involving the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a seven-year-old girl. While the crime was horrific, the Court focused on whether the accused received a fair trial. Dashwanth had been convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court and confirmed by the Madras High Court.
The Supreme Court found serious procedural lapses: the accused had no legal representation when charges were framed, and the trial and sentencing were conducted in haste. The Court also questioned the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including “last seen” testimony, CCTV footage, and alleged confessions, noting signs of fabrication by the police.
Criticizing the rushed imposition of the death penalty without assessing mitigating factors or conducting proper evaluations, the Court concluded that the trial violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22(1). Consequently, it set aside the conviction and death sentence, emphasizing that justice must be done through fair process, even in cases of the most heinous crimes.
Case Title: DASHWANTH Versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Crl.A. No. 3633-3634/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
7-Year Bar Practice Qualifies Judicial Officers for District Judge Posts: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma, and K Vinod Chandran, has ruled that judicial officers who had at least seven years of experience as advocates before joining the judicial service are eligible to be appointed as District Judges under the Bar quota.
This decision overturns the 2020 Dheeraj Mor judgment, which had barred judicial officers from applying under the Bar quota. The bench is hearing around 30 petitions that could reshape the process of judicial recruitment across India.
The Court also held that:
- Candidates with a combined experience of seven years as both advocates and judicial officers are eligible for direct recruitment to the district judiciary.
- Eligibility will be assessed at the time of selection, not necessarily at the time of appointment.
- Minimum age for applicants will be 35 years on the date of application.
The Court clarified that state governments, in consultation with High Courts, must frame clear rules defining eligibility for in-service judicial officers.
Chief Justice Gavai emphasized that Article 233 of the Constitution must be read holistically and purposively, noting that a rigid interpretation limiting competition would violate the spirit of equality under Article 14.
Justice MM Sundresh, while dissenting, stressed that both advocates and judicial officers should be treated as eligible gateways to the higher judiciary, ensuring equal opportunity and quality in judicial appointments.
The ruling will apply prospectively, except in cases protected by existing High Court interim orders.
Case Title: REJANISH K.V. vs. K. DEEPA
Civil Appeal No(s). 3947/2020
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000: Supreme Court Grants Retroactive Relief Under Juvenile Justice Act to Man 41 Years After 1981 Crime
The Supreme Court of India held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can apply retroactively to offences committed decades ago, even when the Children’s Act, 1960 was in force.
The case concerned Hansraj, who was only 12 years old when he was convicted of murder in Sultanpur in 1981. The Sessions Court recognized him as a minor and ordered that he be kept in a children’s home, but the High Court later acquitted him in 2000. When the State appealed, the Supreme Court restored the conviction in 2009. Hansraj was arrested again in 2022, over forty years later.
The Supreme Court observed that under Section 7-A of the JJ Act, the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after a case has been finally decided. Once it is established that the person was a child at the time of the offence, the court must grant relief accordingly.
It further held that Hansraj’s continued detention was unlawful and violated Article 21, since his incarceration exceeded the permissible limit. The Court also noted that his original trial had breached Section 24 of the Children’s Act, 1960, which prohibits joint trials of minors and adults.
Emphasizing that the reformative purpose of juvenile detention had long been defeated, the Court ordered Hansraj’s immediate release, declaring that his liberty had been curtailed “not in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
Case Title: Hansraj vs State of UP
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 340 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Karur Stampede | Free and Impartial Investigation: Supreme Court Transfers Probe to CBI, Forms SIT Led by Retired Judge for Monitoring
The Supreme Court has ordered that the Karur stampede case be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure a free, fair, and impartial probe.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and N.V. Anjaria directed the handover and formed a three-member monitoring committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi to oversee the CBI’s work.
The Court stated that the matter involved citizens’ fundamental rights and therefore required close supervision. To facilitate this, it has also set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a retired Supreme Court judge and two senior IPS officers. The SIT will monitor the CBI’s progress, address related issues surrounding the stampede, and can determine its own procedures. The CBI must submit monthly progress reports to the committee to maintain transparency.
The Court clarified that issues concerning the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for managing public gatherings will continue before the Division Bench. It also sought a report from the Registrar General on how the case was initially listed as a criminal petition.
Case Title: TAMILAGA VETTRI KAZHAGAM V P.H. DINESH AND ORS.
Diary No. 58048-2025
READ ORDER HERE
Magistrates Can Order Voice Samples Even Under Old CrPC, Does Not Constitute Self-Incrimination: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a judgment by CJI B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, ruled that a Judicial Magistrate can direct a person to provide a voice sample for criminal investigations, even under the older Cr.P.C., which does not explicitly mention this power. This overturned a High Court order that had quashed such a direction, reaffirming the precedent set in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019).
The case arose during the investigation of a 25-year-old woman’s death in 2021, involving allegations of harassment, extortion, and threats to witnesses. When the Investigating Officer sought a voice sample from a person connected to the deceased’s father, the Magistrate ordered it, but the individual challenged it in the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that voice samples are non-testimonial material evidence, similar to fingerprints or handwriting, and providing them does not violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Court emphasized that Magistrates have the authority to direct voice samples under both the old Cr.P.C. and the BNSS, 2023, and restored the Magistrate’s order.
Case Title: Rahul Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5518 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Law Steps In to Lift the Veil from Grief: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madhya Pradesh HC Order
The Supreme Court of India, on October 14, 2025, reinstated the life conviction of Janved Singh in the 1997 dowry-related death of Pushpa, overturning the High Court’s acquittal. Pushpa, married to Mahesh Singh, had reportedly faced harassment over dowry.
Her death, initially reported as an accidental electrocution, was found by post-mortem to be caused by strangulation, with burn marks inflicted post-mortem. The Trial Court had convicted Janved Singh under Sections 302, 498-A, and 201 IPC and Mahesh Singh under Sections 304-B and 498-A, while acquitting other family members.
The High Court later acquitted both Janved and Mahesh Singh, citing delayed witness testimonies, inadmissible marriage documents, and insufficient evidence placing Janved Singh at the scene. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Janved Singh caused Pushpa’s death and attempted to cover it up by fabricating the electrocution story, and accordingly reinstated his conviction, directing him to serve the remaining life sentence.
The appeal was partly allowed.
Case Title: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS JANVED SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Consent Irrelevant for Minor Victim in Rape Case: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape Case
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by a convict, upholding the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to convict him for the kidnapping, rape, and unnatural sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the victim’s consent was legally immaterial due to her minor age and described the High Court’s judgment as the “only possible view” based on the evidence.
The case originated in 2007 when an FIR was filed at Hamirpur after a complaint by the victim’s uncle. While the trial court had acquitted both accused, the High Court, in 2015, overturned the acquittal of the main accused, convicting him under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC and sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine.
The Supreme Court noted that the victim’s testimony was consistent and credible, corroborated by medical evidence, and that her minor status rendered any question of consent irrelevant. It held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused and reaffirmed the High Court’s conviction.
Case Title: VARUN KUMAR ALIAS SONU Versus THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2018
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Waitlisted Candidates Have No Right to Appointment: Supreme Court on Government Recruitment
The Supreme Court ruled that mere inclusion in a waitlist does not confer a right to appointment. The case arose when Subit Kumar Das, who was placed on the SC-reserved waitlist for a 1997 All India Radio recruitment, sought an appointment years later. The Central Administrative Tribunal had earlier noted a statement by Union counsel suggesting he would be absorbed if a vacancy arose. Based on this, the Calcutta High Court in 2024 directed AIR to absorb him retroactively.
The Supreme Court clarified two key points:
- Waitlist is not a source of recruitment – once all selected candidates join, a waitlisted candidate has no claim. Extending the claim to future vacancies would reduce opportunities for new applicants.
- Erroneous legal concessions are not binding – a wrong statement by government counsel cannot override statutory recruitment rules.
The Court set aside the High Court order, emphasizing that appointments must strictly follow recruitment rules, and giving effect to the 1999 statement would have been unlawful.
Case Title: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS SUBIT KUMAR DAS
Diary No.57192 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Constitutional Courts Should not Order CBI Inquiries as a Matter of Routine: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that constitutional courts should not order CBI investigations as a matter of routine. In an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order directing a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council recruitment, the bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the High Court order.
The Court emphasized that CBI probes are a measure of last resort and should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances, such as:
- Prima facie evidence of an offence;
- Doubts over the impartiality or integrity of local investigations;
- Cases of complexity, large-scale impact, or national significance;
- Involvement of high-ranking officials or politically influential persons.
The bench warned that routine directions for central investigations based on subjective distrust or mere allegations amount to judicial overreach, and courts must exercise restraint to avoid burdening specialized agencies unnecessarily.
Case Title: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL U.P. LUCKNOW & ORS VERSUS SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11842 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Only Victims Can File FIRs Under UP Conversion Law, Not Strangers: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India quashed five FIRs against the Vice Chancellor and officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj, related to alleged mass religious conversions. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra emphasized protection of personal liberty and procedural fairness, reinforcing that criminal law should not be misused as a tool for harassment.
Key Observations:
- FIR by an Unauthorized Person is Defective: FIR No. 224/2022, filed by a third party not covered under Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act, was invalid. The Court highlighted that only the converted individual or close relatives can file complaints, protecting personal freedom in matters of faith.
- Multiple FIRs for the Same Incident Are Abuse of Process: FIRs 54, 55, and 60 of 2023 were near-identical to the original FIR and constituted a misuse of the criminal justice system, following the principle in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
- Fabricated Evidence and Mala Fide Intent: Investigations showed irregularities, including identical witness statements across FIRs, affidavit mix-ups, and complainants switching roles from witnesses to victims, suggesting orchestrated complaints.
Outcome:
- FIRs Nos. 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023 were quashed along with all related proceedings.
- FIR No. 538/2023 was partially quashed under the U.P. Conversion Act, but non-religious offences under IPC will continue.
- Interim protection for the petitioners continues.
The Court underscored that criminal law cannot be used to harass or target individuals and must respect legislative safeguards and procedural fairness.
Case Title: RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 123 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Hope the Future of the Third Gender Is Secure: SC Forms Committee for Equal Jobs, Inclusive Medical Care
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the rights and dignity of transgender persons. A dedicated committee, headed by retired Justice Asha Menon and including transgender activists Grace Banu and Akai Padmashali, along with experts from CLPR Bengaluru and Dr. Sanjay Sharma, with Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari as amicus curiae, has been constituted to ensure equality and inclusion.
Key Points of the Judgment:
- Protection Against Discrimination: Transgender individuals must receive fair opportunities in employment and social spheres without discrimination.
- Inclusive Medical Care: Institutions are urged to provide healthcare that respects transgender identities.
- Equal Employment Opportunities: The Court awarded compensation to a transwoman teacher whose appointments in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat were unfairly terminated due to her gender identity, signaling zero tolerance for discrimination.
Committee’s Mandate:
- Ensure workplace equality for transgender persons.
- Advise on inclusive healthcare policies.
- Protect gender non-conforming individuals from social exclusion.
- Guide institutions until a comprehensive national policy is established.
The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan emphasized securing the future of the third gender, aiming to provide lasting protections, dignity, and equal opportunities for transgender citizens.
Case Title: JANE KAUSHIK V UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) No. 1405/2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court on Matruka Property: Property Left by Deceased, Will, and Muslim Law Succession Rules Explained
The Supreme Court of India clarified the concept of matruka property and its distribution under Muslim inheritance law. Matruka property refers to the estate left behind by a deceased person, limited strictly to what the deceased owned at the time of death.
Distribution Rules:
- A deceased’s Will takes precedence, but it cannot exceed one-third of the estate or benefit an heir without the consent.
- The remaining property is distributed according to Muslim intestate succession rules.
- Agreements to sell do not transfer ownership until completed, so such property remains matruka property.
- Under Muslim law, a wife inherits 1/4th of the estate if there are no children.
The dispute arose after Chand Khan’s death. His wife Zoharbee claimed 3/4th of the property, while his brother Imam Khan contested, arguing that some property was already transferred. The Civil Court partly sided with Imam Khan, but the Appellate and High Courts granted Zoharbee her claimed share. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings.
The Court also stressed the importance of accurate translation in judgments to preserve legal meaning.
Case Title: ZOHARBEE & ANR Versus IMAM KHAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4516-4517 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Conviction Cannot Be Sustained When Genesis Of Incident Doubtful: Supreme Court Acquits 4 Men in 30-Year-Old Murder Case
The Supreme Court of India set aside the convictions of four men in a more than three-decade-old murder case, underscoring the importance of granting the benefit of doubt when the prosecution’s narrative is riddled with inconsistencies. The case stemmed from a complaint alleging that ten men attacked the victim during a dispute over dismantling a temporary hutment. Four were convicted under Section 302 IPC, and their conviction was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
On appeal, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta examined the testimonies of two purported eyewitnesses and found them mutually contradictory. One claimed the incident occurred near a field, while the other said it took place near a hutment; each denied the other’s presence, and both accounts clashed with the site plan and medical findings. The Court observed that such contradictions made the genesis and manner of the incident doubtful, rendering the prosecution’s version unreliable.
Relying on precedents such as Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016) and Bhagwan Sahai v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that when the origin or nature of an occurrence is uncertain and the prosecution suppresses material facts, a conviction cannot be upheld. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to acquit not only the appellant but also the three co-convicts who had not appealed, thereby completely overturning the High Court’s judgment.
Case Title: KANNAIYA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 116 OF 2012
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Slams Insurance Firms for Frivolous Appeals: Insurer Would Be Liable to Indemnify the Employer
The Supreme Court criticized insurance companies for filing unnecessary, technical appeals that delay rightful compensation, undermining the welfare objectives of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the Calcutta High Court’s decision, which had relieved the insurer of direct liability, and reinstated the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation’s original order holding both employer and insurer jointly and severally liable.
The Court clarified that once an employer enters into a valid insurance contract covering liability under the Act, the insurer must indemnify the employer, noting there was no policy clause exempting such liability. It condemned the insurer’s practice of raising technical objections despite acknowledging ultimate liability, stressing that such tactics delay compensation to injured employees and contravene the law’s welfare purpose.
To penalize the frivolous appeal and the resulting delay, the Court imposed a Rs. 50,000 fine on the insurance company, payable to the injured employee. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court’s hyper-technical approach, which disadvantaged the employee, could not be sustained, and restored the Commissioner’s award.
Case Title: Alok Kumar Ghosh v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Civil Appeal No(s). 10482 /2017
READ ORDER HERE
Tribal Women Cannot Inherit Property Under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court
In a significant ruling underscoring the limits of judicial intervention in matters of tribal law, the Supreme Court set aside a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court directive that had extended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to daughters belonging to tribal communities.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, noting that Section 2(2) of the Act explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government, which has not been done for any Himachal Pradesh tribes.
The Court stressed that judicial directions cannot override clear statutory provisions or venture beyond the scope of issues raised in a case. Citing precedents including Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) and Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India (1997), the bench reaffirmed that tribal inheritance remains governed by customary laws unless Parliament decides otherwise.
Case Title: Nawang & Anr Vs Bahadur & Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4980 OF 2017
READ ORDER HERE
Termination After 8 Years Unjustified: Supreme Court Grants Relief to 4 Class IV Employees of Uttar Pradesh District Judiciary
On October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India held that the dismissal of four Class IV employees of the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary was unjustified, providing relief after nearly two decades of litigation. The employees had been terminated in 2008, eight years after their appointment, because their selection exceeded the initially notified vacancies.
The Court observed that the 2000 recruitment advertisement allowed for vacancies to “increase or decrease,” indicating that waitlisted candidates could lawfully be appointed to future vacancies. Since no fresh recruitment occurred until 2008 and 2015, the employees had been serving during a period when vacancies arose, making their termination inconsistent with Rule 12 and precedents like Naseem Ahmad v. State of UP (2011).
While acknowledging that some appellants had crossed 60 and 17 years had passed since termination, the Court directed:
- Employees not yet retired should be accommodated in existing Class IV vacancies or in supernumerary posts.
- Reinstated employees will not claim seniority, but their 8 years of prior service will count toward pensionable service.
- The intervening 17-year period will not count for salary, seniority, or pension.
The ruling emphasizes the protection of lawful appointments and the rights of public employees against arbitrary termination.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Ors Vs District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar (U.P.)
Special Leave Petition (C) No.14980 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Minors Can Reclaim Property Without Filing Lawsuit on Attaining Majority: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that minors who become adults are not required to file a lawsuit to cancel property sales made by their natural guardians without court permission.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale held that such transactions, made without approval under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, are voidable, not void. This means that once the minor turns 18, they can either accept or reject the sale.
The case involved two plots in Karnataka that a father, Rudrappa, sold without permission while they were owned by his minor sons. After becoming adults, the sons sold the land again, effectively rejecting the earlier sale.
The Court ruled that this act amounted to repudiation by conduct, stating:
“A minor who attains majority can repudiate an unauthorized sale either by filing a suit or through clear, unequivocal actions.”
In short, a minor’s disapproval of such a sale can be shown through their actions, such as selling the property themselves; a lawsuit is not necessary.
Case Title: K. S. Shivappa Vs Smt. K. Neelamma
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11342 OF 2013
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Police Can Register FIR for Threatening Witnesses, No Court Complaint Needed: Supreme Court
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that offences under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which concern threatening or inducing someone to give false evidence, are cognizable offences, and do not require a court’s complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, allowed appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), overturning the Kerala and Karnataka High Court decisions that had quashed proceedings under Section 195A IPC.
The cases arose when witnesses in separate murder trials in Kerala and Karnataka alleged threats and intimidation. Both High Courts ruled that such cases needed a formal court complaint before prosecution. The Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that while offences under Sections 193–196 IPC require court sanction, Section 195A, added later, is explicitly cognizable, allowing police to register FIRs and investigate directly.
The Court observed that requiring a threatened witness to first approach the court would “cripple and hamper the process” of justice and undermine witness protection. It also clarified that the word “may” in Section 195A CrPC is permissive, not mandatory, giving witnesses the choice to approach either the police or a magistrate for relief.
The Supreme Court set aside both High Court judgments, restored the criminal proceedings, and allowed the accused to seek fresh bail on other grounds.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters
SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Liable for Offence, No Escape from Common Object: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of two men in a Maharashtra murder case, reiterating that once a person’s participation in an unlawful assembly is proved, they are vicariously liable for offences committed in pursuit of its common object.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the appeals, affirming the Bombay High Court’s conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 IPC.
Citing Masalti v. State of U.P., the Court clarified that every member doesn’t need to commit an overt act, sharing the common object is enough to attract liability.
The case arose from a coordinated attack where armed assailants intercepted a vehicle, killing one person and injuring two others. The Supreme Court found the eyewitness and medical evidence credible, confirming that the accused acted together with a clear intent to kill.
Holding that the trial court had ignored key evidence, the Bench ruled that the High Court rightly intervened and concluded that the attack was premeditated and joint.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as baseless and upheld the convictions under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
Case Title: Haribhau @ Bhausaheb Dinakar Kharuse & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1755 OF 2011
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Minor Discrepancies Can’t Undo Murder Conviction Based on Dying Declaration: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of a woman in a Gujarat murder case, ruling that minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence do not undermine a genuine and corroborated dying declaration.
The case involved the death of Leelaben, who was set ablaze while sleeping with her son. The prosecution alleged that her aunt-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Leelaben later died from her injuries, while her son suffered minor burns.
The Trial Court had acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in three dying declarations. However, the Gujarat High Court convicted her under Section 302 IPC, relying on the first dying declaration made before an independent witness, the attending doctor, which was supported by medical and forensic evidence.
A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi upheld the conviction, stating that slight variations in witness statements cannot nullify a credible declaration. The Court emphasized that the first statement, made voluntarily and in a conscious state, was reliable.
The Bench cited the precedent in Nallam Veera Stayanandam v. Public Prosecutor (2004), reaffirming that a consistent and trustworthy dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction.
Supporting evidence included kerosene-smelling burns, recovery of a kerosene container, matching soil samples, and the son’s burn injuries consistent with the mother’s statement.
The Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the life sentence, and reiterated that a dying declaration remains a vital and dependable piece of evidence when found credible and corroborated by facts.
Case Title: Jemaben v. The State of Gujarat
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1934 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Route Violation No Excuse for Insurance Companies to Deny Accident Compensation: Supreme Court
In a ruling protecting accident victims, the Supreme Court of India has held that insurance companies cannot refuse compensation merely because a vehicle was operating outside its permitted route or had violated permit conditions.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the purpose of motor insurance is to safeguard owners from direct liability and ensure fair compensation to victims, regardless of minor administrative lapses. Denying compensation in such cases, the Court said, “would be offensive to the sense of justice,” since the victim is not at fault.
The judgment arose from a 2014 accident case in which a motorcyclist was killed after being hit by a rashly driven vehicle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹18.86 lakh to the victim’s family, a decision upheld by the Karnataka High Court, which directed the insurer to pay the amount first and recover it later from the vehicle owner.
Dismissing both appeals by the owner and the insurer, the Supreme Court ruled that deviations from permit conditions do not exempt insurance companies from compensating victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, though they may recover the amount from the owner afterward.
Case Title: K. NAGENDRA Versus THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
SLP (C) Nos. 7139-7140 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
No Purpose in Perpetuating a Legal Relationship that has No meaning: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage that had “ceased to have any meaning.” The Court directed the husband to pay ₹1 crore as permanent alimony and full settlement to his estranged wife.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict in an appeal filed by the wife against a Rajasthan High Court judgment in a long-standing matrimonial dispute.
The couple married in 2009 and separated in 2010 following allegations of harassment by the wife. Over the years, she initiated multiple proceedings seeking maintenance, compensation, and residence rights. Though lower courts initially granted her financial relief, the Rajasthan High Court later dismissed most of her claims, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Noting that the parties had lived apart for over 15 years and that reconciliation efforts had failed, the Court observed that “no marital bond survives between them.” Using Article 142, the Bench dissolved the marriage and ordered the husband to pay ₹1 crore as a just and final settlement, covering all claims, including those concerning the minor child.
The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s power to ensure complete justice by ending marriages that have irretrievably broken down.
Case Title: REKHA MINOCHA VERSUS AMIT SHAH MINOCHA & ORS.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1595 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Such Summons Could Infringe Fundamental Rights Of Accused: Supreme Court Slams Investigating Agencies for Summoning Advocates
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reinforced the protection of lawyer-client confidentiality and procedural safeguards in investigations.
A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, ruled that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose privileged client communications. The Court emphasized that investigating officers must not summon defense lawyers except in clearly defined exceptional cases, reaffirming that such confidentiality is protected under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
Addressing electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court held that digital devices must be produced before the jurisdictional court rather than accessed directly by investigating agencies. Access may only occur in the presence of the concerned lawyer and parties if objections are overruled.
The bench also quashed summons issued to advocates in a pending Special Leave Petition, observing that such actions could violate the fundamental rights of accused persons and breach statutory safeguards.
The verdict follows earlier hearings where the Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for summoning lawyers who had merely offered legal advice, calling it an overreach. The ED subsequently issued a circular directing its officers not to summon advocates without prior approval from its director.
Bar associations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), had earlier condemned the ED’s actions, warning that they threatened the independence and integrity of the legal profession.
Case Title: In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues
SMW (Crl) 2/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Refuses to De-Seal New Rajinder Nagar Property Used for Commercial Purposes
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea seeking the de-sealing of commercial premises at Plot No. 106, New Rajinder Nagar Market (LSC), New Delhi.
A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) position, holding that under the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (MPD-2021), the property lies in a shop-cum-residence Local Shopping Centre where only the ground floor is allowed for commercial use. The upper floors can be converted for commercial purposes only after paying the prescribed conversion charges.
The Court observed that the property’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeded permissible limits and that the first floor, though used commercially, was sanctioned for residential purposes in the 2005 construction approval.
Directing the MCD to carry out a joint inspection, the Bench ordered the authority to identify all violations and determine the conversion and penalty charges. The owner may remove any non-compoundable structures and pay the required fees to regularize commercial use.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the petitioner’s application to de-seal the property.
Case Title: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985
READ ORDER HERE
‘Law Yields to Justice’: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction in Marriage with Child
In a rare exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of a man found guilty under the POCSO Act and Section 366 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih noted that the “peculiar facts and circumstances” warranted a compassionate approach, as the man and the victim—now adults—had married in 2021 and were living together with their child.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, empowering the Court to ensure “complete justice”, observing that “the law must yield to the cause of justice” in this unique case.
The Court also noted that the “peculiar facts and circumstances” warranted a compassionate approach, as the man and the victim, now adults, had married in 2021 and were living together with their child. It was observed that while offences under the POCSO Act are serious, the present case stemmed from “love, not lust.” It held that continuing the prosecution would harm the family’s stability and cause greater injustice.
Invoking Article 142, the Bench quashed the conviction, directing the man to maintain his wife and child with dignity throughout their lives. The Court clarified that this order was passed in the case’s unique circumstances and should not be treated as a precedent.
Case Title: K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Teachers Cleared TET Before Deadline; Supreme Court Quashes Termination as “Illegal and Unjust”
On 31 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that two Assistant Teachers from Uttar Pradesh were wrongly dismissed for not holding Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificates at the time of appointment.
A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored their services, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision that had upheld their termination.
The Court noted that under the 2017 amendment to Section 23 of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, teachers in service as of 31 March 2015 were given time until 31 March 2019 to obtain the TET qualification. Since both teachers cleared the test before that deadline, one in 2011 and the other in 2014, their removal in 2018 was held to be unjustified.
The Bench observed that the High Court had adopted an “overly technical” view and ignored the legislative intent of allowing a grace period for qualification.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the termination orders and directed the immediate reinstatement of the teachers with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, except back wages.
Case Title:
UMA KANT AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
SLP(C) No. 22164 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Delay Must Cause ‘Perversity’ to Set Aside Arbitral Award, Delay Alone not Enough: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India clarified that a mere delay in delivering an arbitral award is not, by itself, a valid reason to set it aside. However, if such a delay causes confusion, loss of reasoning, or an unfair outcome, the award can be invalidated as being against the public policy of India.
The dispute stemmed from a Joint Development Agreement signed in December 2004 for a property in Chennai. Lancor Holdings, the developer, was to build the project at its own cost and share half of the completed area with the landowners. It had also deposited ₹6.82 crores as refundable security, due for return after the project handover. The handover date, as per the agreement, required an architect’s completion certificate, an application to the CMDA for approval, and a formal offer of possession.
Lancor claimed the handover occurred in October 2008, but the landowners disputed this, saying construction was incomplete. Despite the disagreement, the developer executed five sale deeds using a photocopy of a Power of Attorney that was still held in escrow. The matter went to arbitration before a retired judge, who reserved his award in July 2012 but pronounced it only in March 2016—after nearly four years. The arbitrator sided with the landowners, declaring the sale deeds invalid, yet left the financial issues unresolved.
The Supreme Court found that the long, unexplained delay had clearly affected the arbitrator’s clarity and reasoning. The award, it said, was repetitive, confused, and failed to settle the dispute, amounting to perversity and patent illegality. The Court therefore set it aside as being contrary to public policy.
To avoid prolonging a sixteen-year conflict, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to deliver complete justice. It upheld the five sale deeds as valid and directed Lancor to pay the landowners ₹10 crores—₹6.82 crores representing the forfeited deposit and ₹3.18 crores as compensation. Once this payment is made within three months, the developer will be entitled to possession of its 50 percent share in the property.
In short, the judgment establishes that delay alone doesn’t nullify an arbitral award—but when delay undermines the integrity of the decision, the award cannot stand.
Case Title: M/s. Lancor Holdings Limited versus Prem Kumar Menon and others
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 10074-10075 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap
