As we step into January 2026, it’s essential to reflect on the Supreme Court’s most impactful judicial pronouncements in December 2025. 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 January 2026, it’s important to reflect on the most impactful judicial pronouncements of December 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 December 2025, highlighting their key takeaways, legal reasoning, and potential ramifications.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
Prosecutor are Officers of Justice, Not Conviction Machines: Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction
In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to a fair criminal trial, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court bound to uphold justice, not merely an advocate seeking conviction for the State.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh set aside the convictions of three accused, Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi, after finding serious irregularities in the recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC. The Court held that improper and vague questioning prejudiced the defense and violated mandatory legal requirements.
The case originated from a 2016 murder trial in Buxar, where six people were convicted under Sections 302/34, 448, and 323 IPC for the alleged killing of Ghughali Pasi. The Supreme Court noted that the Section 313 statements were identical, lacked specific incriminating questions, and were handled in a mechanically improper manner.
Criticizing the prosecution, the Court stated that a prosecutor must act impartially and assist the court in arriving at the truth, rather than pursue a conviction at any cost.
Allowing the appeals solely on procedural grounds, the Court ordered a remand, directing the trial to resume from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, applicable only to the three appellants. The fresh proceedings must be completed within four months, and the Registrar has been instructed to notify the Patna High Court of compliance.
Case Title: CHANDAN PASI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF THE BIHAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). 5137-5138 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Directs UPSC to Implement Screen Reader Access for Visually Impaired Candidates
The Supreme Court heard a petition seeking mandatory accessibility measures such as screen-reader software for visually impaired candidates in public and competitive examinations. Petitioners argued that candidates should not be forced to rely solely on scribes and must be provided independent, technology-based support to ensure equality and dignity.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the UPSC to take concrete steps to enable visually impaired aspirants to use screen-reader software and other digital aids. The Court said it will monitor progress and listed the matter for 16 February to review compliance.
UPSC filed an additional affidavit stating that it has agreed in principle to introduce screen-reader software in all examinations and is working to establish necessary infrastructure, cybersecurity provisions, and testing across centres. UPSC indicated implementation may begin from the next exam cycle, but the Court raised concerns about limiting the facility to only a few centres, calling such restrictions unfair.
The affidavit mentioned ongoing measures including coordination with exam supervisors, infrastructure assessment through video conferences, collaboration with NIEPVD centres, and support from DEPwD for infrastructure upgrades. However, DEPwD clarified that UPSC is responsible for software security, accessible formatting, and exam protocol.
Case Title: Mission Accessibility v. Union of India
W.P.(C) No. 206/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Divorced Muslim Woman Entitled to All Properties Given by Family or Husband During or After Marriage: Supreme Court
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the Calcutta High Court ruling that denied a divorced Muslim woman the return of money and gold received at the time of her marriage. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 must be interpreted with a focus on social justice, ensuring dignity and financial security for divorced Muslim women.
The appellant had claimed ₹17.67 lakh, including dower, dowry, 30 bhories of gold ornaments, and furniture. Her marriage took place on 28 August 2005 and ended in divorce on 13 December 2011. The trial court initially ordered payment of ₹8.3 lakh and return of the gold, and this was upheld by the sessions court. However, in 2022, the Calcutta High Court reversed the decision, treating the matter as a civil dispute rather than one falling under the 1986 Act. The High Court relied on discrepancies in the marriage register entries about who received the gifts.
The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that the High Court ignored crucial testimony, particularly the Marriage Registrar’s clarification that the entry errors were accidental. The Court held that reliance on procedural inconsistencies and the outcome of related criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, in which the husband was acquitted, was misplaced. It reaffirmed that under Section 3(1) of the 1986 Act, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to all property and assets given before, during, or after marriage and cited Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) to underline that the Act is intended to ensure economic protection after divorce.
Emphasizing a purposive interpretation, the Court said that judicial decisions must reflect lived realities, particularly for women in rural and patriarchal contexts, and that the object of the Act aligns with Article 21 – the right to dignity and livelihood.
The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court restored the earlier trial court direction requiring the respondent to return ₹8 lakh and 30 bhories of gold. The woman must provide bank details within three working days, and the husband must transfer the money directly and file an affidavit of compliance within six weeks. A 9% annual interest will apply for any delay.
Case Title: ROUSANARA BEGUM VERSUS S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN & ANR.
Diary No.60854 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Recording Women Without Consent in Non-Private Spaces Not Voyeurism: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India ruled that photographing or recording a woman without her consent in a non-private setting does not amount to voyeurism under Section 354C of the IPC. The case arose from a property dispute in Kolkata, where Tuhin Kumar Biswas allegedly recorded a woman entering the property. The FIR had cited voyeurism, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation.
The Court clarified that voyeurism applies only to private acts such as undressing, using a bathroom, or engaging in sexual activity. Since the recording happened in a public context, the charge was unsustainable. Similarly, there was no criminal intimidation, and a civil court order justified the alleged wrongful restraint.
The Bench criticized the filing of weak charge sheets and emphasized that criminal courts should filter out cases with little evidence to prevent judicial delays. The Supreme Court discharged the accused, noting the matter was purely civil and should be resolved through civil proceedings.
Case Title: Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba vs. The State of West Bengal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5146 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
No Withdrawal of Cases Against Lawmakers Without High Court Leave: Supreme Court Dismisses Bal Kumar Patel’s Appeals
The Supreme Court refused to quash the criminal case against Bal Kumar Patel (Raj Kumar), upholding the Allahabad High Court’s decision. The Court said the State of Uttar Pradesh never obtained the mandatory permission from the High Court to withdraw the case—a requirement laid down in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India for any prosecution involving a sitting or former MP/MLA.
Patel’s case arose from a 2007 FIR under the Arms Act. Although the State later sought to withdraw the case in 2014, the Trial Court in 2021 pointed out that High Court approval was required and gave the State time to obtain it. The State did nothing. Patel then asked the High Court to quash the case, but the request was denied.
The Supreme Court agreed with that decision, reiterating that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC requires both an independent decision by the Public Prosecutor and judicial consent. Since the required High Court permission was missing, the proceedings could not be quashed.
The Court dismissed the appeals while making clear it was not commenting on the merits of the case, leaving Patel free to raise his arguments during discharge or trial.
Case Title: BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P
CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). 5196 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
No GST on Hostels for Students: Supreme Court Says ‘Ultimate Use Is Residential’
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that leasing a residential property to an organisation that uses it as a hostel for students or working professionals will not attract GST. The Court held that the property’s ultimate use remains residential, so the exemption under GST continues to apply.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan upheld the Karnataka High Court’s view, rejecting earlier rulings by the AAR and AAAR that had denied the exemption. The Court noted that imposing 18% GST would eventually burden students and professionals, defeating the purpose of the residential-use exemption.
The case involved a Bengaluru property with 42 rooms leased to D Twelve Spaces Pvt. Ltd., which provided long-term hostel accommodation. By confirming that such leases are exempt from GST, the judgment brings clarity and relief to landlords, student housing operators, and tenants nationwide.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. VERSUS TAGHAR VASUDEVA AMBRISH & ANR.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7846 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Preferential Right Comes First”: Supreme Court Stops Forced Acquisition in Mumbai Slum Redevelopment Case
On 2 December 2025, the Supreme Court refused to order the Maharashtra Government to acquire a 2005 sq. m. Malad land parcel under Section 14 of the Slum Act. The Court held that land acquisition cannot override the legal rights of the actual landowner, especially their preferential right to redevelop once a property is declared a slum.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan reaffirmed that no acquisition process can begin until the landowner’s preferential redevelopment right is legally extinguished, relying on earlier rulings in Tarabai Nagar and Saldanha Real Estate.
The dispute involved Jyoti Builders, who had earlier shifted 34 slum dwellers and received significant FSI benefits, but never owned the land. In 2015 the SRA recommended acquisition, but a High Court stay on slum schemes for RG plots halted progress until 2022. After the ban lifted, the original owner sold the land to Alchemi Developers, making them the new rightful owner with redevelopment rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s refusal to enforce the 2015 order. It criticised Jyoti Builders for approaching the courts after years of delay and rejected their claims for further benefits, noting that they had already received full FSI compensation.
The Court clarified that Jyoti Builders cannot claim rights over a plot they do not own, even if they previously shifted occupants. The disputed land must remain reserved as a Recreational Ground (RG), and no construction is permitted by any party, including the new owner.
The Court added that Jyoti Builders can receive the Occupation Certificate for their final sale building only after handing over a separate 2700 sq. m. RG plot required under their original project obligations.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that acquisition at this stage is unwarranted and contrary to the owner’s statutory rights, the scheme of the Slum Act, and the need to protect designated open spaces.
Case Title: Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors
Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Saves Panchayat Bhawan from Demolition: Sets Aside Allahabad High Court Order in Pilibhit Case
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned an Allahabad High Court order that had directed the demolition of a Panchayat Bhawan in Phirseh Churrah village, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said public funds should not be wasted by tearing down a building constructed on Gram Sabha land.
The case originated from a 2022 PIL by villager Angrej Singh, who alleged that the building blocked a public pathway. However, the authorities informed the Supreme Court that an alternative route had already been created and that the structure stood entirely on Gram Sabha land.
Taking note of this, the Court ruled that demolition was unnecessary. It directed the district collector to personally inspect the site, verify the existence of the alternative pathway, and resolve any disputes among villagers. The Court made it clear that the Panchayat Bhawan must not be demolished and tasked the collector with ensuring smooth public access through the new route.
Case Title: SATNAM SINGH vs. STATE OF U.P & ORS.
SLP(C) No.9386 OF 2024
READ ORDER HERE
Statement Recorded Under Section 161 CrPC to Police Admissible as Dying Declaration: Supreme Court Summons Husband’s Relatives
The Supreme Court has overturned an Allahabad High Court order and directed that the husband’s mother, brother, and brother-in-law must also stand trial for their alleged involvement in the shooting of Nishi, who later died from her injuries.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the evidence on record—including the testimony of Nishi’s minor daughter and Nishi’s own statements to the police—created a strong prima facie case that these relatives instigated the crime.
Crucially, the Court ruled that statements given to the police under Section 161 CrPC can qualify as dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, even without a Magistrate or medical certification, as long as they relate to the cause of death.
The ruling came in Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 1386). The Court found that the Trial Court and the High Court wrongly rejected the prosecution’s request under Section 319 CrPC to summon these family members as additional accused, despite clear material implicating them.
Nishi had given two statements before her death: in the first, she named only her husband; in the second, she said he shot her at the instigation of his mother, brother, and brother-in-law, linked to harassment over the birth of daughters and pressure to abort a female foetus. Her nine-year-old daughter also described their involvement before the court.
The Supreme Court held that concerns about inconsistencies or tutoring were issues for the trial, not grounds to reject summoning. It emphasized that Section 319 may be invoked when evidence is strong enough to indicate possible involvement, even if not conclusive.
Setting aside the High Court’s April 22, 2024 order and the Trial Court’s earlier decision, the Supreme Court directed the respondents to face trial in Sessions Trial No. 1151 of 2021 and appear before the Trial Court on January 8, 2026. All observations, the Court clarified, are limited to the summoning stage and not findings on guilt.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.
SLP(Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Clarifies: No Arbitrator Discretion, Upholds 36% Interest in BPL–Morgan Securities Case
The Supreme Court has dismissed BPL Limited’s appeals and upheld an arbitral award requiring the company to pay 36% annual interest with monthly compounding to Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta held that when parties explicitly agree to an interest rate in a commercial contract, that agreed rate governs the arbitrator’s decision under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court emphasised that in business-to-business transactions involving equal bargaining power, even a high interest rate cannot be called unfair, penal, or against public policy simply because it is steep.
The dispute arose from a bill discounting facility provided by Morgan Securities to BPL Display Device Ltd. and BPL Ltd. The agreement stipulated a normal interest rate of 36% per annum (with monthly rests), a concessional rate of 22.5% for timely payments, and a clause restoring the higher rate in case of default. After BPL failed to repay, the arbitrator awarded the higher rate of 36%, and both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the award.
Before the Supreme Court, BPL argued that restoring the 36% rate required prior notice, that monthly compounding was penal, and that the arbitrator could still award a “reasonable” rate under Section 31(7)(a). They also argued the rate violated public policy. Morgan Securities countered that the contract was voluntary and clear, that the Usurious Loans Act did not apply to bill discounting, and that the agreed terms must be enforced.
The Supreme Court agreed with Morgan Securities, explaining that bill discounting is a high-risk, short-term commercial facility that often carries high rates. It ruled that the phrase “unless otherwise agreed” gives primacy to party autonomy, leaving the arbitrator no discretion to alter an agreed interest rate. The Court also rejected arguments about penalty, unconscionability, and contra proferentem, stating these principles do not apply to freely negotiated commercial contracts.
Applying the “legitimate interest” test from Cavendish Square v. Makdessi, the Court found that the 36% rate and compounding protected a genuine business interest given the risk and long delay caused by the default.
Holding that the award was consistent with the contract and public policy, the Court dismissed BPL’s appeals and affirmed the arbitral award in full.
Case Title: BPL Limited v. Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited
Civil Appeal No. 14565-14566 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Heightened Obligation to Ensure Dignified Security: Supreme Court Finalises Divorce, Orders Rs.50 Lakh Alimony to Judicial Officer & Advocate
The Supreme Court of India upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s divorce decree, ruling that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It increased permanent alimony for the appellant-wife from Rs 30 lakh to Rs 50 lakh, citing the respondent-husband’s “heightened obligation” as a serving judicial officer to provide financial security for his estranged wife and daughter.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, noted that continuing the marriage would only prolong hostility and harm the welfare of their 17-year-old daughter. The couple, married in 2008, separated in 2012 and has a daughter born in 2009.
The Family Court initially dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, citing cruelty, but the High Court later granted the divorce with alimony. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s assessment that the marriage was deeply acrimonious and had broken down beyond repair.
The Court directed that the Rs 50 lakh alimony be paid within three months as full and final settlement. It also confirmed arrangements for the daughter: maturity proceeds from the father’s LIC policy (~Rs 41 lakh) to be deposited in her account, monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000, coverage of marriage expenses, and protection of her inheritance rights.
Case Title: SONIA VIRK VS ROHIT VATS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14856 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Ends Jharkhand’s Extra Verification Rule: 2009 Stamp-Duty Directive for Cooperative Societies Declared Illegal
The Supreme Court struck down a 2009 Jharkhand government directive that required cooperative societies to obtain additional verification from the assistant registrar to claim stamp duty exemption on property registration. The Court held that this extra requirement was illegal, unnecessary, and not supported by law.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar emphasized that once a cooperative society is officially registered, its registration certificate is conclusive proof of its existence. Any further verification was deemed redundant and based on irrelevant considerations.
Justice Narasimha stressed that good governance requires simple, transparent procedures that enable effortless compliance, not bureaucratic hurdles that waste time and cause harassment. The Court ruled that the executive cannot impose unnecessary conditions under the pretext of regulation.
By overturning the Jharkhand High Court’s rulings and cancelling the directive, the Supreme Court reinforced that administrative processes must be reasonable, meaningful, and respectful of citizens’ rights and time.
Case Title: ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SOCIETY LTD vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
DIARY NO. 7678 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Reduces Remaining Jail Term After Compromise Between Parties
The Supreme Court reduced the remaining jail sentence of two men convicted in a 2016 Salem case involving assault and property damage, while keeping their conviction intact. The Court ordered that the sentence be limited to the period they had already spent in custody.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prasanna B. Varale noted that the parties had reached a compromise and that the appellants had already served over two years of their five-year sentence. The Court also condoned the delay in filing the appeal since the appellants were in jail and granted leave to hear the case.
Upholding the findings of guilt under Section 326 IPC and the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to time already undergone and directed the immediate release of the appellants, provided they were not required in any other case.
The ruling clarified that while the punishment was reduced on equitable grounds, the conviction remained unaffected.
Case Title: Venkatesh & Another v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5156 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Hostile Witness Testimony Can’t Be Ignored: Supreme Court Slams ‘Perverse’ Conviction
The Supreme Court of India set aside the convictions of Dadu @ Ankush and Ankit for assault and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright and may be relied upon if it supports either side. In this case, a hostile witness provided a plausible alternative explanation that the injuries occurred during a scuffle at a Ganesh Puja pandal, not at the complainant’s house.
The Court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case, noting that medical evidence did not support the alleged assault, no independent witnesses were examined despite claims of their presence, and there was no evidence showing that the offence was motivated by the victim’s caste.
Calling the High Court’s findings perverse and unsupported by evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted both appellants and discharged their bail bonds, terming the convictions “indefensible.”
Case Title: DADU @ ANKUSH & ANR. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 10759/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Warns: Municipal Bodies Will ‘Become Defunct’ Without Revenue, Cannot Deliver Basic Services
The Supreme Court ruled that municipal bodies must have adequate financial resources to function effectively and provide essential civic services. Setting aside the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench order, the Court upheld the Akola Municipal Corporation’s decision to revise property tax after 16 years.
The bench held that courts should not interfere with tax revisions, as rising costs of infrastructure, manpower, sanitation, and public health make regular tax updates necessary. Without sufficient revenue—particularly from property tax—municipal bodies risk becoming ineffective, leading to poor sanitation, disease spread, and deterioration in citizens’ quality of life.
The Court emphasized that municipal corporations are autonomous institutions with constitutional responsibilities such as urban planning, waste management, and public health. Financial autonomy, including the power to periodically revise taxes, is essential for administrative independence and effective governance. Relying on state grants would weaken municipal functioning and defeat the purpose of local self-governance.
Case Title: AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. VS ZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 12488-12489 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Nomination Becomes Void After Marriage: Supreme Court Splits GPF Between Widow and Mother in Key Ruling
The Supreme Court has ruled that a nomination alone does not give absolute rights over the General Provident Fund (GPF) when a deceased government employee leaves behind a legally wedded spouse. In a dispute between a widow and the mother of a deceased Defence Accounts Department employee, the Court held that the GPF amount must be shared equally between them.
Although the employee had nominated his mother for GPF before marriage, the Court noted that under applicable rules, such a nomination automatically becomes invalid once the employee acquires a family. Since the employee married in 2003 and did not update his GPF nomination thereafter, the earlier nomination ceased to be valid.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order that awarded the entire GPF amount to the mother and restored the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision directing a 50:50 distribution between the wife and the mother. The widow had already received her share, and the remaining amount was ordered to be released to the mother.
The Court clarified that it is the employee’s responsibility to update nominations and that the rules are designed to ensure fair distribution among eligible family members when this is not done.
Case Title: Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order dated July 8, 2025, concerning summons issued under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the IPC.
The case stemmed from a complaint by a Scheduled Caste woman alleging assault and caste-based abuse by the appellants. While the complaint led to charges under Sections 323 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court examined whether the statutory requirement of abuse occurring “in any place within public view” was met.
The Court found that:
- The alleged caste abuse occurred inside the complainant’s house.
- No unrelated members of the public were present.
- Hence, the essential element of “public view” under Section 3(1)(s) was missing.
Relying on precedents such as Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) and Karuppudayar v. State (2025), the Court held that private spaces without public presence do not satisfy the requirement of public view.
Final Outcome
- Charges under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were quashed.
- Proceedings under Sections 323 and 504 IPC will continue.
- The High Court’s order was set aside only to this limited extent.
Case Title: SOHANVIR @ SOHANVIR DHAMA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
SLP (CRL) NO.14100 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Presence or Absence of Smegma on the Accused’s Genitalia Cannot be Treated as Conclusive Proof: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that the presence or absence of smegma on an accused’s genitalia is not conclusive proof of whether sexual intercourse occurred. Dismissing a rape convict’s appeal, the Court held that allegations of sexual assault cannot be discredited solely on this medical factor.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that smegma has no decisive medico-legal value, particularly when the alleged intercourse occurred days before the medical examination. Since the accused and the minor prosecutrix had stayed together for about 12 days and the timing of the last sexual act was uncertain, smegma could not rule out coitus. The Court relied on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, which notes that smegma may accumulate within 24 hours and is irrelevant for determining rape, as even minimal penetration constitutes the offence.
The appeal challenged the appellant’s conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, upheld earlier by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Court rejected the argument that the prosecutrix was above 16 based on school records, holding that a statutory birth certificate has higher evidentiary value. Since the birth certificate established that she was a minor, consent was legally irrelevant.
The Court also declined to reduce the sentence, noting that Section 376 IPC prescribed a mandatory minimum of seven years at the relevant time. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2619/2014
READ ORDER HERE
Supreme Court Rules FR 56(a) Ensures Full Service Till Month-End; Assam Electricity Board Retirees Get Pay Revision Relief
The Supreme Court has ruled that employees of the Assam State Electricity Board and its successor companies who attained the age of superannuation in March 2016 are entitled to the benefits of the revised pay scale under the Assam Electricity Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017.
The Court held that under Fundamental Rule 56(a), an employee retires only on the last day of the month in which they turn 60. Therefore, employees who reached retirement age in March 2016 legally remained in service until 31 March 2016 and could not be treated as having retired earlier.
Rejecting the Gauhati High Court Division Bench’s view, the Supreme Court clarified that continuation in service till the end of the month is not a mere extension for pay and allowances, nor does the employer-employee relationship end on the exact date the employee turns 60.
Since the 2017 Pay Rules apply to all employees “in service on 31.03.2016,” the appellants were squarely covered. The Court relied on earlier precedents, including S. Banerjee v. Union of India, and noted that the last day of superannuation must be treated as a working day.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restored the Single Judge’s decision, and held that the appellants are entitled to revised pay and pension calculated on that basis. The Court directed payment of arrears within six months, with 6% annual interest for any delay, and permitted recovery from responsible officials if liabilities arise.
Case Title: Mukut Das v. Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Others
Civil Appeal No.14559 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
High Courts Can’t Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR, Sessions Court Now Mandatory: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that High Courts cannot grant pre-arrest protection while simultaneously refusing to quash an FIR. Such an approach, the Court said, is legally inconsistent and undermines the statutory scheme of criminal procedure.
The ruling came in a case where the Allahabad High Court, despite declining to quash an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, granted the accused protection from arrest through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that:
- Anticipatory bail must first be sought before the Sessions Court under Section 438 CrPC, in keeping with the judicial hierarchy.
- Granting protection from arrest after holding that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence is self-contradictory.
- Blanket protection from arrest until the filing of the charge-sheet seriously prejudices the investigation.
Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the Court reiterated that High Courts should not routinely grant pre-arrest protection under writ or inherent jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders granting protection from arrest and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the quashing petitions on merits. Interim protection was allowed to continue during the pendency of the proceedings, and the High Court was directed to decide the matter expeditiously.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Gupta Versus State of U.P. & Ors.
SLP (Crl.) No(s).17464-17465 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Contempt Power ‘Not a Sword to Silence Critics’: Supreme Court Gives Relief to Woman Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Remark
The Supreme Court has clarified that the power to punish for contempt is meant to uphold the dignity of the judicial institution, not to shield judges from criticism. Setting aside a Bombay High Court order, the Court overturned the conviction of a Navi Mumbai resident for criminal contempt.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that courts must exercise restraint and that contempt jurisdiction is not a “personal armour” for judges or a tool to silence criticism. The Court emphasised that the power to punish also includes the power to forgive where genuine remorse is shown.
The case arose from a January 2025 circular issued by Vineeta Srinandan, which contained remarks suggesting undue judicial protection to dog feeders during a housing society dispute. The Bombay High Court had taken suo motu cognisance, held the remarks to be scandalising the judiciary, and sentenced her to one week’s simple imprisonment and a fine.
While the Supreme Court agreed that the remarks technically amounted to criminal contempt, it held that the High Court erred in rejecting Srinandan’s apology. Referring to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court said an apology should not be dismissed merely because it is qualified, as long as it is sincere and prompt.
Distinguishing earlier cases involving grave and unapologetic attacks on the judiciary, the Court stressed that contempt law balances institutional dignity with human fallibility. Finding that Srinandan had expressed genuine remorse, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that justice would be better served by mercy rather than punishment.
Case Title: Vineeta Srinandan vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay on its Own Motion
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Corporate Debtor’s Claim of A Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real: Supreme Court
On 10 December 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the NCLAT and restored the NCLT’s order admitting the Section 9 application against Dhanlaxmi Electricals Private Limited. The Court held that the corporate debtor’s plea of a pre-existing dispute was illusory and unsupported by any contemporaneous material, and was contradicted by its own ledger entries and subsequent payments.
The operational creditor, M/s Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries, supplied pipes and cables to the corporate debtor under a running account. On 4 August 2021, the corporate debtor emailed its ledger confirming outstanding dues of ₹1.79 crore. Even after receipt of the Section 8 demand notice, the corporate debtor made payments aggregating to ₹61 lakh. The Court noted that an earlier CIRP against the corporate debtor had prevented the operational creditor from filing its own insolvency petition at that stage.
The NCLT admitted the application on the basis of acknowledgment of debt and absence of any genuine dispute. The NCLAT reversed the order, relying on alleged disputes raised in emails from 2018–2019 and the delay in filing the application.
The Supreme Court found that the allegations of non-supply, short supply, and quality defects were raised only after issuance of the demand notice and were unsupported by documents. Delivery challans, transporter bills, and e-way bills established supply under the disputed invoices. The debtor’s claims were inconsistent and exaggerated over time, reflecting a lack of bona fides. The Court also noted that the reply to the demand notice was issued by a suspended Technical Director during an ongoing CIRP, rendering the defence untenable.
Reiterating the principle in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that a pre-existing dispute must be real and supported by evidence, and that sham or speculative defences cannot defeat a Section 9 application. The objections raised were held to be mere attempts to evade an admitted liability.
Accordingly, the NCLAT judgment dated 13 March 2024 was set aside, the NCLT order dated 6 December 2023 was restored, and the CIRP was directed to continue from the date of communication of the judgment.
Case Title: M/s. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries v. Mohammad Moinuddin Khan and others
Civil Appeal No. 12261 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
ICC Can Probe POSH Complaints Against Employees From Any Department: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the workplace of an aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into a complaint under the POSH Act even when the alleged respondent is employed in a different department of the Government of India. The Court clarified that the expression “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the Act is procedural in nature and does not restrict jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s department.
The appeal arose from a complaint filed by a 2004-batch IAS officer alleging sexual harassment by a 2010-batch IRS officer at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, on 15 May 2023. The complainant lodged an FIR and thereafter approached the ICC of her department, which issued notice to the appellant. The appellant challenged the proceedings before the CAT and the Delhi High Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, both of which rejected his plea.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that only the ICC of his own department could inquire into the complaint and that disciplinary control lay exclusively with his employer. The Court rejected this submission, holding that such an interpretation would defeat the object of the POSH Act and erect procedural and psychological barriers for aggrieved women.
The Bench emphasized the expansive definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o) of the Act and observed that the ICC at the complainant’s workplace is empowered to conduct the fact-finding inquiry. The Court further noted that under the applicable DoPT guidelines, while the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace conducts the preliminary inquiry, any subsequent disciplinary action must be taken by the respondent’s department in accordance with service rules.
The Court affirmed that the need for disciplinary action by the respondent’s employer does not curtail the authority of the ICC at the complainant’s workplace to inquire into the complaint. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the ICC’s report was directed to be forwarded to the appellant’s department for further action as per law.
Case Title: Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Rules Police Can Freeze & Attach Property Simultaneously Under CrPC and PC Act
On 10 December 2025, the Supreme Court held that the power of the police to seize property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the power to attach property under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are not mutually exclusive. The Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing de-freezing of bank accounts, which had proceeded on the premise that the PC Act is a complete code and that seizure could only be effected under Section 18A.
The case arose from an investigation into a police officer alleged to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, including properties and funds held in the names of his relatives. During investigation, certain fixed deposits in the name of the accused’s father were frozen under Section 102 CrPC. The trial court declined de-freezing, but the High Court allowed the challenge relying on Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022).
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court distinguished between “seizure” under Section 102 CrPC and “attachment” under Section 18A of the PC Act read with the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance. The Court held that seizure under Section 102 is an investigative power exercised to secure property during investigation, whereas attachment under Section 18A follows a judicial, sequential, and deliberative process involving notice and adjudication. Though the consequences may appear similar, the two powers operate in distinct fields and can coexist.
The Court further held that Ratan Babulal Lath does not constitute binding precedent under Article 141, as it did not lay down any principle of law after examining the facts. Accordingly, the High Court erred in treating it as conclusive.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the freezing order, while noting that the investigation had concluded and a chargesheet had been filed. It directed that if the frozen amount had already been released, the respondent must re-deposit the amount or furnish equivalent security within three weeks, leaving further action to be determined by the appropriate court.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal vs. Anil Kumar Dey
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5373 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Compassionate Appointment Is Final, No Second Chance for Higher Post: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts a job on compassionate grounds, they cannot later demand appointment to a higher post. Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that a compassionate appointment is a one-time exception meant to address immediate financial hardship, not a route for career advancement.
The case involved two individuals appointed as sweepers in Tamil Nadu on compassionate grounds who later sought appointment as Junior Assistants, claiming they were qualified and unaware of the higher option earlier. The Court rejected this argument, stating that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that eligibility alone does not create a right to a higher post.
The Court warned that allowing such claims would result in “endless compassion” and emphasized that once the appointment is accepted, the purpose of compassionate employment is fulfilled. Since the respondents’ families were no longer in financial distress, their claims could not be repeatedly revived.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal and set aside the Madras High Court’s order directing appointment to higher posts.
Case Title: Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M Jayabal and anr
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12640-12643 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Detention Period Can Be Fresh Ground for Juvenile’s Second Bail Under JJ Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that juveniles are entitled to liberal consideration of bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that there is no bar on filing a second bail application, and that the period of detention itself can be a fresh ground, especially for juveniles, where bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Setting aside a Rajasthan High Court order, the Court ruled that the High Court erred in dismissing a juvenile’s bail plea as an impermissible second revision under Section 102 of the JJ Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the second bail application arose from new circumstances, as it was filed after completion of the investigation and after a similarly placed co-accused juvenile was granted bail.
The Court reiterated that under Section 12 of the JJ Act, denial of bail to a juvenile must be supported by strong and compelling reasons. It also noted that the Social Investigation Report showed no criminal background or risk of exposure to bad company, and that family-based rehabilitation was appropriate.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the bail plea should have been considered on merits, directed the release of the juvenile on bail, and allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Juvenile In Conflict With Law AA v. State of Rajasthan
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.18636/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Section 44C of Income Tax Act Applies to All Head Office Expenditure: Supreme Court on Non-Resident Taxation
On 15 December 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the scope of Section 44C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that all head office expenditure of a non-resident assessee—whether common or exclusively incurred for Indian operations—is subject to the statutory ceiling prescribed under Section 44C.
The case arose from a dispute between the Revenue and American Express Bank Ltd., a non-resident bank operating in India through branches. The bank claimed full deduction of head office expenses allegedly incurred exclusively for its Indian business. While the Tribunal and High Court allowed the claim, the Revenue challenged this interpretation.
Rejecting the distinction between “common” and “exclusive” head office expenses, the Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation of Section 44C. It held that the provision was enacted to prevent inflated or unverifiable claims of foreign head office expenses and to impose an objective cap on deductions. The statute contains no exception for exclusive expenses, and permitting full deduction would defeat its legislative intent.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that once an expense qualifies as head office expenditure, it must be governed solely by Section 44C, overriding Section 37. The statutory cap applies uniformly, and non-resident taxpayers cannot bypass it by characterising expenses as exclusively related to Indian operations.
The decisions of the High Court and Tribunal were set aside, and the ruling was delivered in favour of the Revenue, with significant implications for foreign banks and multinational enterprises operating in India.
Case Title: DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)-I, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8291 OF 2015
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Property Bought During Case Is Bought at Your Own Risk”: Supreme Court Bars Separate Suits Against Court Auction Sales
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that persons who purchase property during the pendency of litigation cannot file a separate civil suit to challenge an auction sale conducted by an Executing Court. Setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, the Court held that such suits are barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
In Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that all disputes relating to the execution of a decree must be decided exclusively by the Executing Court, and no independent civil suit is maintainable.
The Court applied the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882) and ruled that purchasers who buy property while litigation is pending do so at their own risk and are bound by the final outcome of the case. Such purchasers are treated as representatives of the judgment-debtor, not independent third parties.
Since the respondents purchased the mortgaged property during ongoing recovery proceedings, they stepped into the shoes of the judgment-debtor. As a result, they could not invoke Order XXI Rule 92(4) CPC or file a separate suit alleging fraud. Their remedies, if any, lay only under Order XXI Rules 89, 90, or 99 CPC, which they failed to pursue within limitation.
The Supreme Court held that a separate suit cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies or limitation periods and that Rule 102 CPC bars pendente lite transferees from claiming protection against dispossession.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment was set aside. However, considering the prolonged litigation and family relationships involved, the Court directed the auction purchasers to pay ₹75 lakh as compensation to the respondents within six months to do complete justice.
Case Title: Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 14761 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 14461 of 2019
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Include Tabulated Charts of Evidence: Supreme Court Mandates Standardized Formates in Criminal Judgments
In a significant move to improve the quality and clarity of criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India has directed all trial courts to follow a standardized judgment format. The guidelines require courts to include tabulated charts of witnesses, documents, and material objects to ensure transparency, traceability, and better evaluation of evidence.
The directions were issued by a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta while acquitting Manoj Jethabhai Parmar, who had spent nearly 13 years in prison in a rape case marked by serious investigative lapses. The Court described the investigation as “hopelessly botched” and reflective of “investigative apathy.”
Under the new framework, trial judgments must include:
- Witness Charts detailing each witness and their role,
- Document Charts listing all exhibited documents and the witnesses who proved them, and
- Material Object Charts identifying physical evidence and its verification.
The Court held that structured judgments aid trial and appellate courts, reduce ambiguity, and help prevent miscarriages of justice. The guidelines may also be adapted for civil cases involving extensive evidence.
Setting aside the appellant’s life sentence, the Court highlighted major flaws in the prosecution’s case, including contradictions in the FIR, unreliable eyewitness conduct, improper seizure of evidence, and failure to use scientific methods such as DNA analysis.
The ruling marks an important reform in criminal procedure by standardizing trial judgments, strengthening accountability, and reducing the risk of wrongful convictions caused by poor documentation and investigation.
Case Title: Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Prolonged Irreconcilable Differences Between Spouses Amount to Cruelty & Justify Divorce: SC Grants Divorce After 24 Years
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that long-standing irreconcilable differences between spouses can amount to mental cruelty and justify divorce, even if neither party is entirely at fault. The Court dissolved a marriage that had effectively broken down for over 20 years, noting that continued separation with no scope for reconciliation serves no purpose.
The couple, married in 2000 and both LIC employees, began experiencing disputes soon after marriage, mainly over the wife’s career and family obligations. The husband sought a divorce in 2003 on the grounds of desertion. While a trial court granted a divorce, the High Court reversed it, finding no intent by the wife to permanently abandon the marriage.
Restoring the divorce decree, the Supreme Court held that cruelty includes prolonged refusal to adjust or coexist, not just overt misconduct. It emphasized that courts need not decide who is right or wrong but should assess whether the marriage can realistically continue. Given the 24-year separation, absence of children, and failed reconciliation efforts, the Court found divorce to be in the best interest of both parties and society.
The judgment reaffirms that prolonged separation can constitute cruelty and that the Supreme Court, under Article 142, may grant divorce in exceptional cases beyond the fault-based framework of the Hindu Marriage Act, relying on the precedent set in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023).
Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick vs Aparna Chakraborty
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5167 OF 2012
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Original Title Deeds Often Kept in Bank Lockers”: Supreme Court Allows Buyer to Recover Money After Seller Hid Mortgage
The Supreme Court of India has restored a trial court’s order allowing a property buyer to recover the advance money paid, after finding that the seller had deliberately concealed that the property was mortgaged to a bank.
The Court held that the seller acted dishonestly by hiding a material fact about an existing encumbrance, despite the agreement clearly stating that the property was free from all liabilities. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had wrongly treated the buyer as being in breach of the agreement.
The dispute arose from a sale agreement for a property valued at ₹4.45 crore, under which the buyer paid ₹50 lakh as advance. The buyer later discovered that the property was mortgaged to Federal Bank—an issue not disclosed by the seller. Although the seller promised to clear the loan and even agreed to reduce the sale price by ₹35 lakh, no genuine steps were taken. Feeling deceived, the buyer sought a refund after a post-dated cheque issued under these assurances was dishonoured.
The Supreme Court noted that the seller never claimed to have informed the buyer about the mortgage and that his silence in response to a legal notice further proved concealment. The Court also found the buyer’s conduct reasonable, observing that it is common practice for original title deeds to remain with banks and that the advance paid was only about 10% of the total consideration.
Concluding that the trial court had rightly granted relief, the Supreme Court restored its order directing the seller to refund the amount with interest, holding that the High Court had erred in interfering with well-supported findings of fraud and misrepresentation.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Abraham George
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5405 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Any Property Or Valuable Security Given Before, At Or After Marriage Is Dowry: Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Mehr’ From Dowry
The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the definition of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is broad and includes any property or valuable security demanded or given at, before, or at any time after marriage, not only at the time of the wedding.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that had acquitted a husband and his mother in a dowry death case. The High Court had wrongly reasoned that, since no dowry demand was made before marriage, later demands could not amount to dowry. The Supreme Court termed this reasoning legally unsound.
The Court held that demands for a colour television, a motorcycle, and cash clearly constituted dowry under Section 2 of the Act, irrespective of when they were made. It reinstated the convictions of the accused under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband was directed to surrender and serve his life sentence, while the 94-year-old mother-in-law was spared imprisonment on humanitarian grounds.
In a significant observation, the Court described dowry as a cross-cultural social evil and distinguished it from the Islamic concept of Mehr, which is a mandatory gift from the groom to the bride intended to ensure her dignity and financial security. The Court expressed concern that Mehr is often reduced to a token amount while illegal dowry flows from the bride’s family.
The case concerned the death of a 20-year-old woman who died of burn injuries within a year of marriage after repeated dowry demands and threats. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly interfered with well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court and failed to apply statutory presumptions correctly. Accordingly, it allowed the State’s appeal and restored the Trial Court’s judgment, with limited modification on sentencing.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg etc.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Acquittal Can’t Be Reversed Lightly”: Supreme Court Sets High Bar for Overturning Verdicts
The Supreme Court has reiterated that an acquittal should not be overturned as a matter of routine and can be reversed only for strong, substantial, and compelling reasons. Once an accused is acquitted, the presumption of innocence is significantly strengthened, and appellate courts must exercise great caution before interfering.
A Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N. V. Anjaria made these observations while dismissing an appeal and upholding an Allahabad High Court decision that had set aside the conviction of three persons in a murder case.
The Court clarified that an appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another interpretation of the evidence is possible. Reappreciation of evidence alone is insufficient unless the earlier findings are clearly unreasonable, perverse, or legally unsustainable.
Emphasising the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, the Supreme Court noted that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubt must benefit the accused. Since the High Court had carefully assessed the evidence and reached a reasonable and lawful conclusion, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere and upheld the acquittal, reaffirming that acquittals enjoy strong judicial protection.
Case Title: RAJ PAL SINGH VERSUS RAJVEER & ORS.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 809 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Mere Allegations in the FIR Cannot Convict, Evidence Must Be Corroborated: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor in Rape Case
On December 16, the Supreme Court of India acquitted Dr. Jayantibhai Chaturbhai Patel, a doctor from Gujarat, who had been convicted of rape by the Trial Court and the Gujarat High Court. The case dated back to May 2001, when a female patient, accompanied by her husband, visited Dr. Patel for stomach pain. The prosecution alleged that he raped her during the examination, leaving visible scratches on her neck.
Dr. Patel was initially sentenced to six years, which the High Court later increased to ten years. In his appeal, he argued that the main witnesses—the victim and her husband—had turned hostile, there was no corroborative medical or independent evidence, and the courts had relied heavily on the FIR and police testimony.
The Supreme Court agreed with Dr. Patel, noting that the victim and her husband had not supported the prosecution and could not be assumed to have been influenced by him. Medical examination showed only minor abrasions, with no evidence of sexual assault. Forensic evidence was weak, and crucial independent witnesses were not examined. The Court emphasized that allegations in the FIR must be proven with credible trial evidence.
Considering these factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction was unjustified, quashed the previous judgments, and acquitted Dr. Patel, discharging his bail bonds.
Case Title: JAYANTIBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 890-891 OF 2017
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Firm Power, Not Infirm: Supreme Court Holds TANGEDCO Liable To Pay Fixed Charges Before Full Commissioning
The Supreme Court of India held that electricity supplied from a gas turbine operating in open cycle before the commissioning of the combined cycle cannot automatically be treated as firm power if the unit had already achieved commercial operation. Consequently, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) must pay fixed charges to Penna Electricity Limited for power supplied during the relevant period.
The Court noted that the amended Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) of August 25, 2004, involved significant changes in location, fuel, technology, and tariff, and was never approved by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission as required under the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court agreed with the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that the amended PPA was effectively a new agreement and could not override statutory tariff regulations.
The Court found that Penna Electricity had synchronized the gas turbine with the grid on October 29, 2005, reached base load, and supplied power continuously at 30 MW. Under the applicable regulations, this constituted firm power, and the supplier was entitled to fixed charges. Denying payment, the Court noted, would be unjust and contrary to law, and the argument that fixed charges would burden consumers was rejected.
The Supreme Court dismissed TANGEDCO’s appeal, upholding the decisions of the TNERC and APTEL that fixed charges must be paid for the relevant period.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Penna Electricity Limited
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5700 OF 2014
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Constitution Is Supreme”: Section 35 of SARFAESI Cannot Override Constitutional Provisions, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, which gives the Act overriding effect over other laws, cannot override the Constitution. The Court emphasized that constitutional provisions, such as Article 371A protecting Nagaland, prevail over statutory laws.
The case arose when the North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. invoked SARFAESI to recover a loan from M/s L. Doulo Builders and Suppliers in Nagaland. The High Court quashed the recovery proceedings, noting that the SARFAESI Act was not yet applicable in Nagaland and that the appellant lacked jurisdiction and a valid security interest under the Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the recovery action was invalid. It held that the appellant could not invoke SARFAESI without a legally recognized security interest and before the Act’s applicability in Nagaland. The Court clarified that the appellant could pursue recovery through other lawful remedies.
Case title: North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. M/s L. Doulo Builders and Suppliers Co. Pvt. Ltd.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6492 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Gender Alone Not a Ground for Bail in Murder Cases: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court Order
The Supreme Court of India set aside a Karnataka High Court order granting bail to a woman accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that bail cannot be granted solely on the grounds of gender and period of custody. A Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan emphasized that courts must assess the seriousness of the allegations, the accused’s specific role, and the gravity of the offence, especially in heinous crimes like murder.
The Court found that the High Court failed to examine the alleged overt acts, including the use of a lethal weapon, and wrongly relied on the accused being a woman and having spent about eleven months in custody. It ruled that gender alone cannot override the gravity of a murder charge.
The case arose from a January 2024 FIR alleging that the accused, Jyothibai, fatally assaulted the complainant’s husband with a machete. She was charged under Sections 120B, 504, 302 read with Section 34 IPC. While the trial court had rejected bail, the High Court granted it in November 2024.
Allowing the complainant’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had ignored settled bail principles, set aside the bail order, and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court on or before December 31, 2025.
Case Title: Rekha K.C. v. Jyothibai & Anr.
SLP (Crl.) No. 13801/2025
READ ORDER HERE
Testator’s Will Is Supreme, Equity Has No Role: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding Daughter
The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle of testamentary freedom by upholding a registered will that excluded one of the testator’s nine children. Setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, the Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the testator’s intention must prevail and cannot be overridden on grounds of equity.
The dispute concerned the estate of N.S. Sreedharan, who executed a registered will in 1988 bequeathing his properties to eight children, excluding one daughter who had married outside the community. While the lower courts invalidated the will for alleged defects in attestation, the Supreme Court found that the will was proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court held that the testimony of the surviving attesting witness, read as a whole, sufficiently established execution and attestation of the will. It clarified that answers elicited in cross-examination, even through leading questions, carry full probative value, and minor inconsistencies after a long lapse of time do not undermine credibility.
Rejecting the argument based on equity, the Court emphasized that courts must respect the testator’s wishes, observing that the exclusion of one heir by itself does not create suspicion. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the will was upheld as valid, and the partition suit filed by the excluded daughter was dismissed.
Case Title: K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors.
SLP (C) Nos. 11057-11058 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Exclusion Clauses Can’t Defeat Insurance Claims”: Supreme Court Says Any Ambiguity Must Favour Insured
The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that exclusion clauses in insurance policies must be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be resolved in favour of the insured. The ruling came in a civil appeal filed by Cement Corporation of India (CCI) against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, challenging the decision of the NCDRC.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that once fire is an insured peril under a policy, the cause or sequence of events leading to the fire is irrelevant, provided the fire was not caused deliberately by the insured. The Court clarified that theft or burglary preceding a fire does not exclude insurance liability when the actual loss is attributable to fire.
The case arose from a 2006 incident in which miscreants entered a CCI factory to commit theft but accidentally caused a fire in a transformer, resulting in extensive damage. Although the loss was claimed under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, the insurer rejected the claim, relying on exclusion clauses related to theft and malicious damage. The NCDRC upheld this rejection.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that theft was not excluded under the fire peril clause and that exclusion clauses cannot be expanded beyond their clear terms. It observed that courts need not examine the “cause of causes” in fire insurance claims and emphasized that losses caused by fire, not arising from the insured’s wilful act, are covered.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC’s order, and remitted the matter for fresh assessment of the loss in accordance with law.
Case Title: Cement Corporation of India v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2052 OF 2016
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Circumstantial Evidence Can Lead to Conviction Only If It Points Solely to Guilt: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in criminal cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be made only if such evidence points exclusively to the guilt of the accused and rules out all possibilities of innocence. It clarified that the “last seen together” theory, by itself, is insufficient to convict an accused without strong corroborative evidence.
Setting aside the conviction and life sentence of Manoj alias Munna in a 2004 murder case, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances. Justice Mishra, who authored the judgment, emphasized that if the circumstances are consistent with innocence, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt.
The Court noted that, except for evidence suggesting that Manoj was last seen with the deceased, there was no supporting evidence linking him conclusively to the crime. As suspicion alone cannot replace proof, the Supreme Court overturned the earlier judgments of the trial court and the High Court, acquitting Manoj and reaffirming a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence.
Case Title: MANOJ @ MUNNA VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2013
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Power to Grant Remission or Commutation Cannot be Curtailed by Sessions Court: Supreme Court Clarifies Life Imprisonment, Remission & Set-Off Law
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of Kiran for the 2014 murder of a widow in Karnataka, confirming life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court clarified, however, that the accused is entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC, overturning the lower court’s denial of this statutory benefit.
The case arose after Kiran allegedly set the widow on fire when she resisted his sexual advances, leading to her death ten days later. Despite some witnesses turning hostile, the victim’s dying declaration and neighbor testimonies provided sufficient evidence.
The Court emphasized that Sessions Courts cannot deny remission, which is governed by Sections 432–435 CrPC and constitutional provisions, and that “life imprisonment without remission” is reserved for rare cases decided by higher courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction, upheld other related sentences, and granted both statutory set-off and eligibility for remission or commutation.
Case Title: Kiran Versus The State of Karnataka
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15786 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Continuance Of Marital Bond Would Only Prolong Agony: Supreme Court Ends Irretrievably Broken Marriage Under Article 142
The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage that had irretrievably broken down, even though both the Trial Court and the High Court had earlier rejected the husband’s divorce plea on statutory grounds.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the couple, married in 2003 and living separately for nearly 20 years, had no possibility of reconciliation. The Court observed that continuing such a marriage would serve no meaningful purpose and would only prolong the suffering of both parties.
The husband’s earlier divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, based on cruelty and desertion, had failed in the lower courts. However, before the Supreme Court, he sought dissolution under Article 142, citing long separation and irreconcilable differences. Mediation efforts also failed.
Acknowledging the prolonged separation and the futility of maintaining the marital bond, the Court granted a decree of divorce under Article 142. Considering that both parties were government school teachers, the Court awarded Rs. 20,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony, payable by the husband within two months.
The Court further directed that upon payment, all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties would stand closed.
The judgment reiterates that Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to do complete justice, allowing it to go beyond rigid statutory provisions when the strict application of the law would result in injustice.
Case Title: Jatinder Kumar vs. Jeewan Lata
SLP (C) NO. 35588 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Supreme Court Restores Cheque Dishonour Case, Says Patna High Court Erred by Conducting ‘Roving Enquiry’
The Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings in a cheque dishonour case (Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act), holding that the High Court erred by conducting a detailed factual inquiry at the pre-trial stage.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the High Court exceeded its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC by examining whether the cheque was issued for repayment of a debt—an issue to be determined only during trial.
The Court emphasized that once a complaint discloses the essential elements of an offence, the matter must proceed to trial. Exceptional quashing at the threshold should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent misuse of legal process or ensure justice.
In this case, the cheque for Rs 20 lakh, allegedly issued for goods delivered, was dishonoured. The Supreme Court found that the complaint sufficiently established a prima facie case under Section 138, and the High Court had no legal basis to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the criminal complaint to the magistrate for further proceedings, clarifying that its order was limited to maintainability and did not address the merits of whether the cheque was issued for repayment of a debt.
Case Title: M/S SRI OM SALES VERSUS ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY PATEL & ANR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5588 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Child Trafficking a ‘Deeply Disturbing Reality’ in India: Supreme Court Issues Landmark Guidelines on Minor Victims’ Testimony
The Supreme Court has highlighted that child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation are grave realities in India and issued important guidelines on how courts should assess the testimony of minor victims. A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the evidence of a trafficked child must be treated with sensitivity and realism, and should not be rejected due to minor inconsistencies or stereotypical expectations of behaviour.
The Court clarified that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice. If her testimony is credible and convincing, it can by itself sustain a conviction, similar to the evidence of an injured witness. Courts must also consider the child’s socio-economic vulnerability, trauma, fear, stigma, and lack of rehabilitation while evaluating her deposition.
Recognising the complex and fragmented nature of organised trafficking networks, the Court observed that victims may be unable to narrate events or show immediate resistance clearly. Such factors should not be used to disbelieve them, as recounting sexual exploitation often causes secondary victimisation, especially for minors.
These observations were made while dismissing an appeal against the conviction of a Bengaluru couple accused of trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor. The Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court, noting that the victim’s testimony was well corroborated.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a minor’s age should ordinarily be determined from school records, with medical tests used only as a last resort, and held that minor procedural lapses under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act do not invalidate a trial unless they cause injustice.
Overall, the Court stressed that judges have a constitutional duty to protect children and must evaluate such cases with empathy, sensitivity, and an understanding of the lived realities of trafficked minors, rather than rigid technical standards.
Case Title: KP Kirankumar @ Kiran v State by Peenya Police
SLP (CRL.) No. 11287/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Time-Bound Investigations Must Be An Exception, Not The Rule: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has cautioned courts against routinely directing time-bound criminal investigations, stating that such orders should be made only in exceptional cases where there is clear evidence of undue delay or stagnation in the investigation. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh emphasised that investigation is a dynamic process requiring reasonable flexibility, and courts should not interfere prematurely.
The Court explained that investigations often face practical difficulties such as uncooperative witnesses, unreliable documents, or procedural interruptions caused by bail applications and judicial directions. Imposing timelines at the outset would amount to undue judicial interference in the executive’s domain. Instead, timelines should be imposed only when delays threaten justice, making such directions reactive rather than preventive.
At the same time, the Court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial includes a prompt and effective investigation. Excessive delays harm not only the accused, who suffer prolonged uncertainty, but also victims and society at large. The judiciary’s role, the Court said, is to balance investigative freedom with constitutional safeguards.
These observations were made while allowing appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against Allahabad High Court orders that had directed completion of an investigation within 90 days and granted protection from arrest. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted unjustifiably, set aside its orders, and allowed interim protection to continue for two weeks before permitting lawful action.
The judgment underscores that High Courts must exercise restraint, respect the investigative process, and intervene only when constitutional rights are demonstrably at risk.
Case Title: STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Versus MOHD ARSHAD KHAN & ANR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5610__ OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Financial Control by a Husband Is a Mirror of Indian Society, Not Cruelty: Supreme Court Quashes 498A Case
The Supreme Court held that a husband’s control over family finances does not amount to cruelty under the law unless there is clear evidence of mental or physical harm. A bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan observed that while such conduct may reflect poorly on the husband’s character, criminal law cannot be used to settle personal or marital disputes.
The Court also noted that allegations regarding lack of care during pregnancy, postpartum neglect, and remarks about weight, though insensitive, did not meet the legal threshold of cruelty. It emphasized that claims under Section 498A IPC require specific instances of harassment, not vague or general allegations.
Finding the FIR to be vague and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the alleged demand of ₹1 crore as dowry, the Court quashed the FIR against the husband. It ruled that mere assertions of mental harassment without concrete details or proof of injury cannot justify criminal proceedings.
The appeal arose after the Telangana High Court refused to quash proceedings against the husband, despite already granting relief to his family members. The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations reflected ordinary marital discord rather than cruelty and cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC and dowry laws.
Case Title: Belide Swagath Kumar v State of Telangana & Another
Diary No.47072 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Minor Inconsistencies Should Not Undermine a ‘Ring of Truth’: Supreme Court Upheld Life Imprisonment in Murder Case
The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences of five men convicted for the 2007 murder of a school teacher, dismissing their appeals against the Madras High Court’s judgment. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih ruled that minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not discredit reliable evidence if it carries a clear “ring of truth.”
The teacher was attacked and killed while returning home on a motorcycle, allegedly due to a land dispute. Though the Sessions Court had initially acquitted all the accused, the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal of five persons in 2021 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Rejecting the defence’s claims of contradictions, biased witnesses, FIR delay, and late inclusion of one accused, the Supreme Court found that eyewitness accounts were consistent and supported by medical evidence. The Court held that small discrepancies or exaggerations do not undermine the prosecution’s case when the core facts are proven.
Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that the murder was premeditated and committed with common intention, and confirmed the life imprisonment of all five convicted accused.
Case Title: Patchaiperumal @ Patchikutti & Anr. Vs. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Anr. (and connected appeals)
Criminal Appeal No. 2030 Of 2022
READ JUDGMENT HERE
‘Dura Lex Sed Lex’: Supreme Court Restores CISF Constable’s Dismissal for Second Marriage, Slams High Court Interference
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders that had directed a lesser punishment for a CISF constable dismissed for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. Emphasising the principle “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law), the Court restored the dismissal order.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court exceeded the limits of judicial review under Article 226 by interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, effectively acting as an appellate body.
The constable, Pranab Kumar Nath, was found guilty of violating Rule 18(b) of the CISF Rules, 2001, and of neglecting his wife and minor child. Following a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service in 2017, a decision upheld by appellate and revisional authorities.
While the High Court viewed dismissal as disproportionate and cited potential financial hardship, the Supreme Court ruled that such considerations cannot override statutory rules governing disciplined forces. It reiterated that courts may interfere with punishment only when it shocks the conscience, which was not the case here.
Upholding settled precedents, the Court concluded that strict adherence to statutory rules is mandatory and that hardship caused by lawful punishment cannot justify judicial interference. Accordingly, the dismissal from service was reinstated.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Pranab Kumar Nath
Civil Appeal No. 15068 of 2023
READ ORDER HERE
SC-ST Act | Victim Has Right To Be Heard, Not Right To Favourable Outcome Of Every Objection: Supreme Court On Section 15A
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 15A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act guarantees victims the right to be heard, not a right to a favourable decision or a detailed ruling on every objection. Once the victim is notified, allowed to participate, and permitted to place objections on record, the statutory requirement is satisfied.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a joint trial of two separate cases while considering bail, thereby curtailing the trial court’s statutory discretion. The Court emphasized that decisions on joint or separate trials must be made by the trial court at the appropriate stage, following due process under the CrPC/BNSS.
The case arose from two distinct FIRs involving allegations of caste-based violence and the subsequent murder of a key eyewitness. The appellant argued that the High Court ignored the accused’s criminal history, including prior bail cancellations for witness intimidation, and wrongly merged unrelated cases.
The Supreme Court found that the two FIRs related to different incidents, involved separate allegations and evidence, and did not form part of the same transaction. It also noted that the High Court failed to properly assess the risk of reoffending, witness intimidation, and interference with justice while granting bail.
Holding the High Court’s order to be legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court set aside the direction for a joint trial, cancelled the bail granted to the accused, and directed them to surrender before the trial court.
Case Title: Lakshmanan v. State Through The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors.
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647 – 6650 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Criminal Revision Won’t End After Informant’s Death”: Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Abatement
The Supreme Court clarified that criminal revision proceedings do not automatically abate on the death of the person who filed them, particularly when the revision is initiated by an informant or complainant. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra held that, unlike criminal appeals, there is no statutory provision in the CrPC mandating abatement of criminal revisions.
The Court explained that if a revision is filed by an accused or a convicted person, the revisional court may decline to continue the proceedings after their death, depending on the nature of the order challenged—especially where the main trial or sentence itself would abate. However, where the revision is filed by an informant or victim, the proceedings may continue at the court’s discretion.
In the present case, the High Court had dismissed a criminal revision after the death of the informant, holding that there was no provision for substitution. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, noting that strict rules of locus standi do not apply to revision proceedings.
The Court further held that the deceased informant’s son, who had a direct interest in the subject matter, qualified as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and could be permitted to assist the court in the revision.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the criminal revision petition, and directed the High Court to decide it afresh on the merits.
Case Title: Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 5589-5590 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Mutation Application Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because It Is Based On A Will: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, an application for mutation based on a will cannot be rejected merely because it is founded on a will and must be considered on its merits. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra clarified that the Code does not prohibit the acquisition of land rights through a will.
In this case, the appellant, claiming mutation as a legatee under a registered will, was granted mutation by the revenue authorities. However, the High Court set aside these orders and directed mutation in favour of the deceased’s legal heirs or the State. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, noting that the High Court failed to examine whether the revenue authorities had committed any jurisdictional or legal error.
The Court reiterated that mutation is a summary fiscal process and does not confer title. Where no serious dispute is raised by natural legal heirs and the will is registered and unchallenged, mutation based on a will should not be denied. Objections based on unregistered agreements or claims of possession do not bar such mutation.
While disputes regarding the genuineness of a will must be decided by a civil court, they do not automatically prevent mutation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the mutation in favour of the appellant, subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings.
Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 15077 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“Section 311 Power Is Wide but Must Be Used Sparingly”: Supreme Court Rejects Late Bid to Examine Minor Witness
The Supreme Court reiterated that powers under Section 311 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when the evidence sought is indispensable to arrive at the truth. A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih held that the Gujarat High Court erred in allowing the prosecution to examine the minor daughter of the deceased at a very late stage of trial.
The case involved the alleged dowry-related suicide of a woman, with FIRs registered under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 IPC, and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After 21 witnesses were examined, the prosecution sought to examine the deceased’s child, who was about 4 years old at the time of the incident, claiming she had been present. The Trial Court had rejected this, noting the absence of any prior mention of the child during the investigation or in the FIR, and the undue delay.
The High Court allowed the application, treating the child as a potential eyewitness. The Supreme Court, however, held that considering her age, the long gap of over seven years, absence of prior statements, and the risk of tutoring, the child’s testimony was not essential. Allowing her examination at this stage would prejudice the accused and prolong the trial.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing that Section 311 CrPC must be applied cautiously and only in rare circumstances where the evidence is truly necessary.
Case Title: Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
SLP (CRL.) NOS.1167-1168/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Tenant Cannot Dictate the Suitability of Alternative Accommodation or Instruct the Landlord: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reaffirmed a landlord’s autonomy in commercial eviction cases, ruling that tenants cannot dictate the suitability of alternative premises or instruct landlords on where to conduct business. A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the landlord’s appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s decision that had favored the tenant.
The case involved a landlord seeking eviction of commercial premises in Kamathipura, Mumbai, for the bona fide requirement of his daughter-in-law. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had ruled in favor of the landlord, but the High Court reversed these findings after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence, which the Supreme Court found to be beyond its revisional jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that revisional courts cannot re-examine evidence in detail unless lower court findings are evidently without authority. Citing precedent, it held that tenants cannot impose conditions on the landlord regarding the suitability of premises for business.
While restoring the eviction order, the Supreme Court granted the tenant—who had occupied the premises for over 50 years—time until June 30, 2026, to vacate, subject to conditions including payment of arrears, regular rent, filing an undertaking, and peaceful handover. Non-compliance may lead to the execution of the decree.
Case Title: Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.
SLP (C) No. 30407 of 2024
READ ORDER HERE
Sixth Sense Suggests They Might Reconcile: Supreme Court Cites Unique Reason to Set Aside Rape Case
The Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction of a man, finding that the case arose from a consensual relationship that soured and acquired a criminal dimension. A bench of Justices V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the dispute resulted from delays in marriage, which caused insecurity for the woman.
The couple, who met via social media in 2015, reconciled and married in July after the Court held private discussions with both parties and their families. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the complaint, conviction, and sentence.
Additionally, the Court directed the reinstatement of the man at a government hospital in Madhya Pradesh and ordered the payment of his salary for the suspension period, instructing the Chief Medical Officer of Sagar district to lift the suspension.
Case Title: SANDEEP SINGH THAKUR VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5256 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
“No Appeal, No Grievance”: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits on Challenging Orders Filed by Others
The Supreme Court clarified that if a party does not file an appeal or cross-appeal against a part of an order, it is deemed not aggrieved by that portion and cannot later challenge it when another party appeals on a different issue. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi made this observation while hearing RattanIndia Power Limited’s (RPL) appeal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
The case arose from long-term power supply agreements between RPL and MSEDCL. RPL sought compensation for “Change in Law” events, including carrying costs. After partial relief from MERC, RPL appealed to APTEL, which denied carrying cost on a compounding interest basis. MSEDCL did not challenge APTEL’s order.
The Supreme Court held that by not filing an appeal or cross-appeal, MSEDCL waived its right to question the APTEL order regarding carrying cost with Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) rates. The Court emphasized that remand orders do not finally decide issues unless explicitly stated, and subordinate authorities must apply current law while giving due consideration to prior directions.
While exercising restraint under Articles 136 and 142, the Court allowed RPL’s appeal and remanded the matter to APTEL for fresh consideration of compounding interest, noting that the issue had never been conclusively decided.
Case Title: RattanIndia Power Limited v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8232 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Liberty Is Our Constitutional Scheme, Not State’s Gift But Its First Obligation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that personal liberty under India’s constitutional framework is not a privilege granted by the State but its primary obligation under Article 21. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and A.G. Masih made this observation while allowing the renewal of a passport for an individual convicted in one coal block case and facing trial in another under the UAPA.
The Court held that involvement in criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. Renewal is permissible when the concerned criminal courts have allowed it and retained control over foreign travel by requiring prior permission.
Setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that courts need not grant travel-specific permissions for each journey at the passport renewal stage. It distinguished between holding a passport and actually traveling abroad, emphasizing that decisions on foreign travel rest with criminal courts, not passport authorities.
The Court directed the issuance of a 10-year passport to the appellant, subject to compliance with conditions imposed by the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court, including restrictions on leaving India without prior court approval.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India & Anr.
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 17769 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Vacancies Notified as ‘Open’, ‘Unreserved’ or ‘General’ Are Open to All Regardless of Caste, Tribe, Class, or Gender: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that vacancies advertised as “open”, “unreserved” or “general” in public employment are open to all candidates purely on merit, irrespective of caste, category, or gender. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that such posts are not reserved for any particular group and must be filled based on merit alone.
The ruling arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Rajasthan High Court for over 2,700 posts, where some reserved category candidates scored higher than the general category cut-off but were confined to competing only within their reserved categories. The Rajasthan High Court had ruled in their favour, and the administration challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Upholding the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court clarified that the terms “open”, “general”, and “unreserved” merely indicate posts not earmarked for reservation. A reserved category candidate who qualifies on merit is entitled to be considered for open posts and does not “migrate” categories by doing so.
The Court emphasized that equality under Articles 14 and 16 requires that merit be recognised across categories. It directed that all candidates be ranked in a combined merit list based on cumulative scores, with open vacancies filled strictly in order of merit.
Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated that excluding meritorious reserved category candidates from open posts would undermine constitutional principles of equality and fairness.
Case Title: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14112 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Dying Declaration of Woman and Child’s Testimony Enough to Summon In-Laws Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that statements made by a deceased woman and her minor daughter were sufficient to summon the woman’s in-laws as additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The case concerns the murder of Smt. Nishi, who was allegedly shot by her husband. Before her death, Nishi named her husband as the shooter and accused her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and another relative of instigating the crime. Her minor daughter also consistently stated that her father acted at the in-laws’ behest. These statements were recorded during the investigation.
Although the police initially charge-sheeted only the husband, the prosecution later sought to summon the in-laws based on the daughter’s testimony. The trial court and the Allahabad High Court rejected this request, citing inconsistencies and doubting the child’s status as an eyewitness.
Reversing these findings, the Supreme Court emphasized that Section 319 CrPC exists to prevent guilty persons from escaping trial. It clarified that at the summoning stage, courts should not assess the credibility or probative value of evidence, but only determine whether there is prima facie material indicating involvement.
The Court ruled that objections such as alleged tutoring of the child, omissions in the FIR, and lack of medical certification for the deceased’s statements were premature. It further held that the deceased woman’s statements qualify as dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and are admissible despite not being recorded by a Magistrate.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directed the in-laws to be summoned, and clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the Section 319 application and not the merits of the case.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar @ Neeraj Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
SLP(Crl.) No. 7518 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Policy Circulars Are Binding On Government Even If Executive In Nature: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that government policies are binding on the State. Any action taken contrary to an existing policy, without formally amending it or providing a valid justification, is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The case concerned the naming of two newly created revenue villages in Rajasthan, Amargarh and Sagatsar, after individuals who had donated land. A government circular dated August 20, 2009, expressly prohibited naming villages after individuals to preserve communal harmony.
While a Single Judge of the High Court struck down the naming of the villages for violating this policy, the Division Bench reversed the decision, treating the circular as merely directory. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the policy circular was binding and could not be ignored.
The Court found that the village names were clearly derived from individual names, directly violating the government’s own policy. It ruled that the State cannot act against its self-imposed policy framework, and such action is unconstitutional under Article 14.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order, invalidating the notification naming the villages after individuals. The judgment reinforces that governmental arbitrariness, especially when deviating from established policy, will not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Case Title: Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
SLP (C) No. 27965 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
GST Exemption Applies to Leasing for Residential Use: Supreme Court Confirms No GST on Student & Professional Hostels
The Supreme Court has ruled that leasing residential properties for use as student or professional hostels is exempt from GST, provided the premises are used for residential purposes. The exemption applies regardless of whether the property is occupied directly by the tenant or sub-leased for residential use.
The Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s 2022 judgment and dismissed the State of Karnataka’s appeal, overturning earlier rulings by GST authorities that had imposed 18% GST on such leases.
Key Points of the Ruling:
- GST Exemption Basis: Entry 13 of the 2017 GST exemption notification focuses on the nature of use (residential), not the identity of the tenant.
- Hostels Covered: Long-term accommodation for students and working professionals (typically 3–12 months) qualifies as residential use.
- Sub-leasing Allowed: Leasing a residential property to an operator who runs a hostel does not remove the exemption, as the end use remains residential.
- No Retrospective Tax: Amendments restricting exemption when rented to registered persons (effective July 18, 2022) cannot be applied retrospectively.
- Legislative Intent: Imposing GST would burden students and professionals, contrary to the intent of exempting residential rentals.
The Supreme Court confirmed that rental income from residential properties used as long-term hostels is GST-exempt for the relevant period, bringing clarity and relief to property owners, hostel operators, students, and working professionals across India.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & anr Vs Taghar Vasudeva Ambarish & anr
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7846 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Usufructuary Mortgage Limitation Starts Only After Repayment, Not From Mortgage Date: Supreme Court Rules
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the legal position on usufructuary mortgages, holding that the limitation period for redemption does not begin from the date of creation of the mortgage, but only from the date when the mortgage amount is actually paid, tendered, deposited, or adjusted, in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
A Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan relied on earlier Supreme Court precedents, particularly Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram (2014), to settle the issue.
Key Findings:
- In a usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit for redemption is fixed, the mortgagor’s right of redemption is a continuing right.
- Limitation does not run merely with the passage of time from the date of the mortgage.
- The limitation period begins only after the mortgage debt is satisfied or adjusted, whether through usufruct, payment, or deposit.
- Until such payment or adjustment is made, the mortgagor’s right to redeem cannot be extinguished, and the mortgagee cannot claim ownership by lapse of time alone.
The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, which had ruled that the respondents’ right to redeem the property was not barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: DALIP SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. SAWAN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3358/2010
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
Read More Reports On Monthly Recap