![Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 20, 2025 To January 26, 2025 Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: January 20, 2025 To January 26, 2025](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/01/14/1500x900_581408-supreme-court-weekly-round-up-1.webp)
Nominal IndexCitationsBalbir Singh & Anr Etc v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others., Civil Appeal No.183 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner...
Nominal Index
Balbir Singh & Anr Etc v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83
Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84
Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others., Civil Appeal No.183 of 2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 87
Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 88
Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 89
Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 90
Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 91
General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank v. B S N Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 92
State of Punjab & Ors v. M/S Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 93
Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented By Inspector of Police 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94
M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 95
Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97
S. Jayalakshmi v. The Special District Revenue Officer & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98
Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 99
Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100
State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1675 of 2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103
Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja v. State of Punjab | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 104
M/S Vidyawati Construction Company v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105
Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106
Ravi Kant and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 266/2009 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 107
Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 108
State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190/2015 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 109
State of Telangana v. S. Satyanarana & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30706-30708/2024
Rahul Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., Diary No. 36772-2024
Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024
Mirza Abid Beg v. State of UP & Ors.
Anju Devi v. State of Karnataka and Ors., Diary No. 59653-2024
G Priyadharshni v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 21/2025
Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda
Kerala Pravasi Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022
All India Judicial Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 643/2015
Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021
Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co
Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016
Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021
Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
Bar Council of India v. Poonam Ashok Goud| Diary No. - 54008/2023
State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan., SLP (Crl) No. 516-522/2025
Kavitha. H.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1910/2025 (and connected cases)
Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 4190-2025
Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. – 1995/2025
Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Reports/Judgments
Higher Court's Order Becomes Final, Trial Court's Order Gets Merged With It: Supreme Court Explains Doctrine Of Merger
Case Details: Balbir Singh & Anr Etc v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 82
Observing that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at a given point in time, the Supreme Court explained the effect of merging the trial court's decree with that of the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeals.
The doctrine speaks that once the superior court disposes of a case, whether by setting aside, modifying, or confirming the lower court's decree, the superior court's order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, merging the lower court's decision into it.
The Supreme Court observed that a suit for specific performance does not conclude after the passing of a decree and that the court retains its control even after the decree is passed.
The bench also said that the court's power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary. For reference, this provision provides that after a specific performance has been decreed in a suit and the plaintiff fails to pay the purchase money within the stipulated time, the court may rescind the contract after receiving an application for the same.
“A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains the control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. The decree for specific performance has been described as a preliminary decree. The power under Section 28 of the Act is discretionary and the court cannot ordinarily annul the decree once passed by it. Although the power to annul the decree exists yet Section 28 of the Act provides for complete relief to both the parties in terms of the decree. The court does not cease to have the power to extend the time even though the trial court had earlier directed in the decree that payment of balance price to be made by certain date and on failure the suit to stand dismissed.”
Police Arresting Accused After Filing Chargesheet Makes No Sense: Supreme Court
Case Details: Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of police arresting an accused, who was not arrested during investigation after the Court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet.
When the Court was informed that such a practice was being followed by the Uttar Pradesh police, it expressed surprise, terming the practice "unusual" . The Court said that such a practice does not make any sense.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed:
"The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense."
Mere Breach Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Fatal To Trial If Contraband Recovery Otherwise Proved: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84
Highlighting that substantive justice outweighs procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for possessing contraband, rejecting his plea for acquittal based on alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
The Court observed that mere non-compliance with Section 52A would not be fatal to the prosecution's case when other cogent evidence proves the recovery of the contraband from the accused possession.
“Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.”, the Court observed.
“If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.”, the court added.
The Supreme Court summarized the principles regarding Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) emphasizing its purpose of ensuring both the safe disposal of seized contraband and introducing procedural safeguards to maintain the integrity of the evidence.
The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the accused challenged its conviction over non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
'Punjab Officials Stooped So Low': Supreme Court Finds Disciplinary Punishment Against Doctor Vengeful, Sets Aside Penalty
Case Details: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Others., Civil Appeal No.183 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court granted relief to a retired Senior Medical Officer who was in service of the Punjab Government, by setting aside the order of penalty imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding.
The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance against the appellant for having dragged high officials of the Government of Punjab to the High Court to obtain his legitimate monetary dues.
“This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law," observed the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Oil Marketing Companies For Inter-Supply Of Petroleum Products
Case Details: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 86
In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature.
The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nashik for the demand of Rs. 119,11,49,418/-(Rupees one hundred nineteen crores, eleven lakhs, forty-nine thousand, four hundred and eighteen only) as differential duty from the BPCL.
Serious Doubt About NGT's Jurisdiction To Direct Prosecution Under PMLA: Supreme Court
Case Details: Waris Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court expressed doubt over the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) jurisdiction to direct prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
“There is a serious doubt about the jurisdiction of the NGT to direct prosecution of an individual under the PMLA. However, we are not going into this question, as the direction contained in paragraph 230 will have to be even otherwise set aside”, the Court observed.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and set aside NGT's direction to initiate proceedings under PMLA against a company in a case concerning environmental pollution in Kanpur Dehat, Uttar Pradesh emphasizing that proceedings under the PMLA cannot be initiated in the absence of a registered scheduled offence.
Asking Son's Lover To End Life If She Can't Live Without Him Not Abetment Of Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Mother
Case Details: Laxmi Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 88
The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case for the offence of abetment to suicide against a woman for asking her son's lover to end her life if she could not live without him.
The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing the case arising out of the Calcutta High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR under Sections 306 r/w 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Appellant.
Setting aside the High Court's decision to the extent that the charges against the Appellant herein were upheld by the High Court, the Court observed that the acts of the Appellant refusing his son's marriage with the deceased, and thereupon asking to end her life if she was not able to live without him are too remote and indirect to constitute the offense under Section 306 IPC
The Court explained that when Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
Though Notice On Petition Was Issued On Limited Point, Court Can Later Hear Other Points: Supreme Court
Case Details: Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 89
The Supreme Court ruled that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues. If the petitioner highlights substantial legal questions or glaring errors, such as procedural lapses or flawed findings in the lower court's judgment, the Bench may examine those issues beyond the notice's initial scope.
The Court observed as follows:
“Justice could be a real casualty if the same or the subsequent Bench, in all situations of limited notice having been issued initially, is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions relatable to points not referred to in the notice issuing order. As it is, since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals/petitions are not frequently issued by this Court. Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points. In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order. However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. If this position is not accepted, Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 of the Constitution will lose much of its significance.” a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan said.
In Disproportionate Assets Cases, Income Tax Returns Presumed To Be Accurate; Must Consider Inflation & Dynamic Factors: Supreme Court
Case Details: Nirankar Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 90
In a noteworthy ruling, the Supreme Court underscored that income tax returns filed by public servants in cases of alleged disproportionate assets should be presumed accurate and credible unless specifically contested or proven false.
Quashing a disproportionate assets case against the former UP's Assistant Excise Commissioner, the Court called for a dynamic and nuanced approach while calculating assets/income over extended periods. It said that factors like inflation and natural appreciation of property values must be considered, particularly when reviewing decades-long finances.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale was hearing the case where the Appellant, a former Assistant Excise Commissioner, challenged an FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleged that he had amassed disproportionate assets worth ₹21.74 lakh beyond his known sources of income from 1996 to 2020.
'Article 14 Doesn't Envisage Negative Equality': Supreme Court Rejects Plea Based On Illegal Promotion Given To Others
Case Details: Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 91
The Supreme Court ruled that irregular promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegality.
While holding so, the Court dismissed the appeal of a retired peon who sought promotion to the position of Tracer based on the fact that other employees had been promoted to this position, even though the recruitment rules specified that the Tracer role should be filled through direct recruitment rather than promotion from lower-level positions.
The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the case arising out of Orissa High Court's decision where the Appellant, a retired peon sought promotion to the post of Tracer based on the previous illegal promotion of her counterparts.
'Bank Officers Expected To Maintain Higher Standards Of Honesty' : Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal Of Staff For Bank Fraud
Case Details: General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank v. B S N Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 92
While deciding an appeal pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against a bank manager, the Supreme Court reiterated that acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate the person in disciplinary proceedings. The Court reasoned that the standard of proof differs in both of these scenarios.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih also stressed that "bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct". It also referred to its decision in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal Jain., (2005) 10 SCC 84. Therein, the Court observed that every bank employee should take all possible steps to protect the bank's interests and discharge his duties with the utmost integrity.
Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules | State Can Levy Royalty On Brick Earth : Supreme Court
Case Details: State of Punjab & Ors v. M/S Om Prakash Brick Kiln Owner, Etc.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court observed that as per the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the State Government is entitled to levy royalty on the mining of brick earth.
The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan were deciding an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the High Court's ruling. In the impugned judgment, the Court had ruled that merely declaring brick earth as a minor mineral does not entitle the State Government to levy royalty. It further held that the appellants failed to prove that they were owners of brick earth. Thus, they are not entitled to collect any royalty.
When 'Sudden & Grave Provocation' Reduces Murder To Culpable Homicide? Supreme Court Explains
Case Details: Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented By Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 94
The Supreme Court observed that not every sudden provocation would reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For reference, exception 1 to Section 300 (murder) of IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder when the accused is deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased person.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan explained that to invoke this exception, there must be a simultaneous reaction of the grave as well as a sudden provocation.
“If the provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the benefit of this exception. Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception where the provocation though sudden is not grave.,” the Court said.
MSMED Act | Is Writ Maintainable Against MSEFC Award? Can MSEFC Members Act As Arbitrators ? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
Case Details: M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 95
The Supreme Court opined that the party aggrieved by an order/award of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) passed under Section 18 of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”) can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
However, upon noting that a contrary view was expressed in the previous ruling delivered by a coordinate bench in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, the bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manmohan referred the question of “Whether the ratio in M/s India Glycols Limited (supra) that a writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court?” to the larger bench for consideration.
Banks Giving Loans Without Proper Title Search Reports: Supreme Court Flags Issue To RBI; Says Officials Who Approved Loan Be Made Liable
Case Details: Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 96
The Supreme Court underscored the significance of comprehensive title search reports in preventing legal disputes and ensuring smooth property transactions.
The Court emphasized the need for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other stakeholders to develop a standardized and practical framework for preparing title search reports before loan sanctioning by banks. The Court said that the framework should also include the determination of liability of the erring bank official who sanctioned the loan based on a faulty title search report.
“we deem it necessary to observe that Banks should remain very careful with inadequate title clearance reports, more particularly, when such reports are obtained cheaply and at times for external reasons. This concerns the protection of public money and is in the larger public interest. Therefore, it is essential for the Reserve Bank of India and other stakeholders to collaborate in developing a standardized and practical approach for preparing title search report before sanctioning loans and also for the purpose of determining liability (including potential criminal action) of the Officer who approves loan. Additionally, there should be standard guidelines for fees and costs associated with title search reports so as to ensure that they maintain high quality.”, the Court said.
Until now, there's no standard mechanism developed by the RBI that regulated the title search report before loan sanctioning by banks. The banks rely on the title search report prepared by the empanelled lawyers, and there's no standardization of title search report preparation.
The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan highlighted the need to develop such a standard framework in the wake of an instance where the bank-sanctioned loan based on the disputed mortgaged property, later discovered to have title disputes.
The Supreme Court observed that when a Plaint includes multiple reliefs, it cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs is barred by law, as long as the other reliefs remain valid.
According to the Court, the plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
“If the civil court is of the view that one relief (say relief A) is not barred by law but is of the view that Relief B is barred by law, the civil court must not make any observations to the effect that relief B is barred by law and must leave that issue undecided in an Order VII, Rule 11 application. This is because if the civil court cannot reject a plaint partially, then by the same logic, it ought not to make any adverse observations against relief B.”, the Court observed.
The Supreme Court noted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is not authorized under the SARFAESI Act to "hand over" possession of the secured asset to an individual who was neither the borrower nor the possessor of the asset. It further stated that the DRT lacks the authority to "restore" possession of secured assets to an individual who is neither the borrower nor in possession of the assets.
The Court clarified that a plea for the handover or restoration of a secured asset by an individual, who is neither a borrower nor in possession of the asset, is maintainable before the civil court.
Village Police Patil Not Police Officer; Confession To Him Admissible As Extra Judicial Confession: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97
The Supreme Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is a “weak type” of evidence and thus requires a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance., the Court said while placing its reliance upon Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 4 SCC 259.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated thus while overturning a judgment of the Bombay High Court reversing the acquittal of the present appellant/ accused for the offence of murder. To summarise, the prosecution alleged that the deceased was married to the appellant and their marital life was not very happy. One day all of a sudden, the deceased went missing. Her body was recovered from the house.
Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Details: S. Jayalakshmi v. The Special District Revenue Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award land acquisition compensation @ ₹495/sq.m, the Appellant preferred application before the District Court under Section 34, which had modified the award and enhanced the compensation to be payable @ ₹4,500/sq.m with 9% interest.
S. 69 Partnership Act |Partner Of Unregistered Firm Can't File Suit For Recovery Against Other Partners: Supreme Court
Case Details: Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 99
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a partner of an unregistered firm cannot enforce a contractual right against another partner. The Court reasoned that the restriction arises from the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (“Act”), which prohibits the maintainability of suits between unregistered partners of a partnership firm.
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 69 of the Act applies even before the partnership firm's business commences. However, filing suits for the dissolution of the firm, rendition of accounts, or realization of the property of a dissolved firm remains permissible, even if the firm is unregistered.
“It is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 that it assumes a mandatory character. Section 69(1) prohibits a suit amongst the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, for the enforcement of a right either arising from a contract or conferred by the Act, unless the suit amongst the partners is in the nature of dissolution of the partnership firm and/or rendition of accounts. Section 69(2) prohibits the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm against third persons for the enforcement of a right arising from a contract. As a consequence, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm and all proceedings arising thereunder, which fall within the ambit of Section 69 would be without jurisdiction.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case arising out of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to dismiss the Civil Revision preferred by the Petitioners against the order of the trial court dismissing the Petitioner's recovery suit against the partner of the same unregistered firm.
NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Contraband Was Seized From 'Conscious Possession' Of Accused: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100
The Supreme Court reiterated that to prove offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the prosecution must establish that the contraband was seized from the 'conscious possession' of the accused.
"Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature. In other words, it requires both physical control and mental awareness," the Court explained.
"Conscious possession implies that the person knew that he had the illicit drug or psychotropic substance in his control and had the intent or knowledge of its illegal nature," the Court stated.
The Court further added that the burden of proof will shift to the accused as per Section 54 of the NDPS Act only when the conscious possession is proved.
"It is the burden of the prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily."
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made these observations while considering an appeal filed by a convict who was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for carrying poppy husk in train.
Deoghar Airport Case: Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of Jharkhand FIR Against BJP MPs, Asks Aircraft Act Authority To Decide On Filing Complaint
Case Details: State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand against the Jharkhand High Court's decision to quash an FIR against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari, and other persons related to the 2022 Deoghar Airport incident.
The Court however granted liberty to the State of Jharkhand to forward the materials collected by them during investigation to the authorised officer under the Aircraft Act, 1934 within four weeks and such officer was directed to take a decision in accordance with law as to whether a complaint needs to be filed under the Aircraft Act.
NDPS Act | Bald Allegation Of S. 52A Non-Compliance Won't Result In Acquittal Unless Foundational Facts Of Non-Compliance Proved: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rajwant Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102
The Supreme Court reiterated that unless the foundational facts of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act are not proved by the accused, he cannot assert a bald allegation that the conviction for possessing contraband cannot be sustained due to non-compliance of Section 52A.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the accused was booked for possessing contraband and sought acquittal due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
The Court doubted the Appellant's case because the investigating officer detailed the recovery process and sealing of the contraband in compliance with Section 52A which was not questioned by the appellant during cross-examination of the prosecution witness that there was no compliance with Section 52A.
Testimony Of Witness Shouldn't Be Discarded Merely Because Of Relation With Victim: Supreme Court
Case Details: Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra., Criminal Appeal No. 1675 of 2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 103
The Supreme Court (on January 22) observed that being a victim's close relative does not automatically make a witness “interested” or biased. Distinguishing between an interested witness and a relative witness, the Court said:
“The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim.”
Taking a cue from this observation, it opined that the courts must assess the consistency of these witnesses' statements before declaring them untrustworthy.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale were deciding on a criminal appeal, preferred by the present accused / appellant against murder conviction. As per the allegations, the accused had animosity with the deceased due to a property dispute. This led to an attack on the deceased and he succumbed to his injuries.
Supreme Court Imposes Rs 2 Lakh Cost On Petitioner Over Repeated Bail Applications, Asks Police To Arrest Him
Case Details: Parteek Arora @ Parteek Juneja v. State of Punjab | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 1920/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 104
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rupees Two Lakhs on a petitioner who intended "to take undue advantage of procedural law" after he withdrew his anticipatory bail application twice before the High Court before moving the Apex Court.
The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Arvind Kumar was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail. The bench noted that before the High Court the accused had withdrawn his application on September 30, 2024 on seeing the disinclination of the High Court in granting anticipatory bail.
Subsequently, in another application filed by the accused, the High Court took a stringent view. It noted that despite the FIR being registered against the accused on June 25, 2023, no action had been taken for more than a year against the accused. The High Court further directed the police to file a status report of the investigation by the next hearing. When the matter was listed again, the petitioner withdrew the application again.
S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Vidyawati Construction Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
Tahir Hussain's Interim Bail: Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict, Referred To Larger Bench
Case Details: Mohd Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi | SLP(Crl) No. 856/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 106
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court pronounced a split verdict on the petition filed by Delhi riots case accused Tahir Hussain seeking interim bail to campaign for the Delhi Assembly elections.
While Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the petition, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed Hussain interim bail. In view of the divergence, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India either to refer the matter to a third judge or a larger bench.
Supreme Court Disposes Of 2009 PIL Against Mayawati Statues, Asks All Parties To Follow ECI Directions On Use Of Public Funds
Case Details: Ravi Kant and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 266/2009
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 107
The Supreme Court on January 15 disposed of a 2009 Public Interest Litigation which was filed against the construction of statues of Former UP Chief Minister Mayawati, her mentor Kanshi Ram and elephants - her party Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)'s symbol - at parks in Lucknow and Noida with taxpayers' money when she was chief minister between 2007 and 2012.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the petition in light of the subsequent developments including the instructions by the Election Commission of India (ECI) against the use of public money to propagate party symbols.
In the order uploaded yesterday, the Court directed that all parties must follow the ECI directions.
"it is necessary to observe that the instructions issued by ECI on 07.10.2016 or its modified or substituted version referred to above shall be complied with not only by respondent No.2 but all political parties in the country," the Court observed.
'Attempt To Transform Civil Dispute Into Criminal Matter', Supreme Court Quashes Workplace Harassment Case
Case Details: Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 108
The Supreme Court on January 24 quashed a workplace harassment case filed by a female employee against her colleagues, observing that the allegations arose from employment disputes that had been exaggerated into a criminal matter.
The Court noted that the proceedings against the appellants were a deliberate “attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable or to transform a civil dispute into a criminal matter, potentially aimed at pressurizing the appellants into settling the dispute with the complainant.”
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the case where the complainant alleged that the appellants had forcibly demanded her resignation under the threat of dismissal, confiscated her belongings, and physically and verbally harassed her. She also claimed that her intellectual property stored on the company's laptop was unlawfully seized.
While Dismissing State's Appeal, Supreme Court Notes Accused Was Assaulted In Custody; Orders Action Against Police Officials
Case Details: State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190/2015
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 109
While dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court noted that the accused was subjected to custodial torture.
Affirming his acquittal in a murder case, the Court directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate to hold an inquiry into the incident of custodial violence against the accused and initiate appropriate proceedings following the law against the erring officials.
The bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the High Court's decision to acquit the Respondent accused in a murder case. The High Court overturned the conviction noting that the prosecution failed to prove the last-seen theory on which its entire case rested.
While considering the case, the Supreme Court noticed the High Court's finding that the accused had broken his leg while he was under custody. The High Court also recorded the doctor's statement that the injury was not due to any fall but due to assault by use of heavy objects. In this background, the Court order enquiry.
Orders
Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Telangana HC Decision Which Struck Down Local Quota Criteria For PG Medical Admissions
Case Details: State of Telangana v. S. Satyanarana & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 30706-30708/2024
The Supreme Court refused to stay a Telangana High Court judgment which struck down amended criteria for determining 'local' status of candidates in post-graduate medical admissions.
For context, the provisions struck down by the High Court(on December 17, 2024) included explanation clause (b) to Rule 8(ii) of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 (and a similar clause under the AYUSH course rules), which sought to impose a stricter criteria for determining 'local' status of a candidate.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating, "we are afraid that such a prayer cannot be granted without hearing the petition on merits. The High Court by an elaborate judgment has set aside certain provisions of law. Unless we find that the reasoning as adopted by the High Court is erroneous, in our view, an interim order to the effect of staying the impugned judgment and order would not be in the interest of justice".
Supreme Court Stays Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi In Criminal Defamation Case Over Remarks Against BJP & Amit Shah
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., Diary No. 36772-2024
The Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings in the criminal defamation case filed against Congress MP and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for allegedly saying that Bharatiya Janata Party members were "liars" and "drunk with power" and for calling Union Home Minister Amit Shah a "murder-accused".
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the interim order while issuing notice on Rahul Gandhi's Special Leave Petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court judgment which dismissed his plea to quash the defamation case filed against him by BJP worker Navin Jha.
Lakhimpur Kheri Case: Supreme Court Asks UP Police To Enquire If Ashish Mishra Attempted To Influence Witnesses
Case Details: Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v. State of U.P. SLP(Crl) No. 7857/2022
The Supreme Court asked the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur (Uttar Pradesh) to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into the allegations that Ashish Mishra attempted to influence the witnesses in the Lakhimpur-Kheri killings case.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the direction while hearing an application filed by the family members of the deceased seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Ashish Mishra alleging that he was trying to influence the witnesses in the case.
Supreme Court Asks J&K&L HC To Install Proper VC Facilities In Jammu Court Holding Trial Against Yasin Malik
Case Details: CBI v. Mohd Yasin Malik
The Supreme Court asked the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh to take immediate steps to install proper video-conferencing facilities in the Court in Jammu, which is holding the trial against Kashmiri separatist Yasin Malik and other accused in the case related to the assassination of four Indian Air Force officials in 1989.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order after considering a report from the trial judge where he stated that the video conferencing facilities in that Court were not functioning properly.
Supreme Court Extends Women's Reservation To NGT Delhi Bar Assn; Says BCD Enrolment Not Necessary To Vote In NGT Bar Elections
Case Details: D.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors., C.A. No. 10496-10497/2024
The Supreme Court clarified that its order reserving posts for women lawyers in Delhi's High Court and District Bar Associations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the National Green Tribunal Bar Association in the capital. Further, it was held that registration with the Bar Council of Delhi is not mandatory for a lawyer-member of the NGT Bar Association to cast a vote, as lawyers from several states appear and argue before the NGT.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, stating,
"It is directed that the interim directions regarding earmarking the post of Treasurer and some of the members of the Executive Committee, for women candidates in the High Court/District Bar Associations of NCT of Delhi shall apply mutatis mutandis to the NGT Bar Association also. The requisite procedure be followed and the reservation for the women candidates be accordingly provided in the election of the NGT Bar Association as well."
Supreme Court Criticises Uttar Pradesh Govt For Non-Compliance With Order To Investigate Illegal Filling Of Water Bodies
Case Details: Mirza Abid Beg v. State of UP & Ors.
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the non-compliance by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the Court's direction to investigate and submit a report on instances of illegal filling of water bodies in Bijnor District.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that despite orders passed on July 16, 2024, and November 22, 2024, the Committee failed to comply with the directions. The Court directed the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment of Uttar Pradesh to submit a personal affidavit detailing the progress made in compliance with the July 16, 2024, order.
“Notwithstanding clear orders dated 16th July, 2024 and 22nd November, 2024, the Committee appointed by the State of Uttar Pradesh has not complied with the directions issued by this Court. The State has not shown elementary courtesy of making an application for extension of time for complying with the orders passed by this Court. We direct the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file his personal affidavit placing on record the details of the work carried out as of date in terms of the order dated 16th July, 2024.”
Atul Subhash Case: Supreme Court Disposes Of Habeas Corpus Petition Filed By Mother Of Subhash To Know Whereabouts Of Child
Case Details: Anju Devi v. State of Karnataka and Ors., Diary No. 59653-2024
The Supreme Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by Anju Devi, mother of Karnataka-based techie Atul Subhash, to know about the whereabouts of her grandson.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter in in-camera proceedings to maintain the privacy of the child. After the Court interacted with the child, it disposed of the petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court in case of child custody.
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Specified Ministry For Senior Citizens, Allows Petitioner To Approach Govt
Case Details: G Priyadharshni v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 21/2025
The Supreme Court on January 20 refused to entertain a writ petition as withdrawn seeking direction for the Union Government to consider establishing a dedicated Ministry for senior citizens of the country. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and make an appropriate representation to the concerned ministries of the Government.
The writ petition was heard by a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra.
The petitioner was Advocate G Priyadharshi, a lawyer and social worker, who sought a special ministry in the Union Government for the senior citizens. The writ petition states: "It is most respectfully submitted that 'senior citizens' being a 'vulnerable class' in itself, comes under constitutional prism of Article 21 owing to the unique and myriad challenges they suffer such as health, societal structure, financial instability and dependence."
Order Passed On Oral Consent Given By Counsel Can't Be Reviewed On Ground That There Was No Written Consent: Supreme Court
Case Details: Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda
The Supreme Court emphasized that all constitutional courts in India accept oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties, and an order cannot be reviewed solely on the ground that consent was not provided in writing.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a review petition in a service matter based solely on the lack of written consent for an earlier order passed by the High Court.
“All constitutional courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on the footing that there is no consent given in writing. As oral consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26 April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent”, the Court held.
Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL Questioning Quality Of Anti-Rabies Vaccines, Allows Petitioner To Approach Union Health Ministry
Case Details: Kerala Pravasi Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 882/2022
The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to constitute an independent expert committee to study the efficacy of the Intra Dermal Rabies Vaccines (IDRV) currently being administered to Humans and Rabies Veterinary Vaccine, administered to dogs in India. The Court however granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, which shall examine and take up necessary steps as are deemed compelling to address the issue of rabies.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Mishra after briefly hearing Advocate Kuriakose Varghese, for the petitioner, stated that the Court cannot do anything in this case. Justice Narasimha said: "Take it before the concerned authority. Dog bites are not uncommon."
Judicial Officers' Pay: Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Form Committees For Service Conditions Of District Judiciary Within 4 Weeks
Case Details: All India Judicial Association v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 643/2015
The Supreme Court urged all High Courts to ensure the constitution of the "Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary" (CSCDJ) in terms of the directions issued in the All India Judges Association case in January 2024 to deal with the grievances of judicial officers regarding the implementation of the Second National Judges Pay Commission (SNJPC).
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the direction after being informed by Senior Advocate K Paremeshwar, the amicus curiae in the All-India Judges Association case, that many High Courts are yet to constitute the CSCDJs. Even in many High Courts where the Committees have been formed, they are not holding regular meetings, the amicus said, resulting in many judicial officers filing applications in the Supreme Court raising their individual grievances. Also, in many High Courts, nodal officers have not been appointed for the CSCDJs.
The Supreme Court urged the High Court judges to record the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of judicial officers promptly so that they do not lose opportunities of promotion. The Court directed the High Courts and State Governments to frame rules regarding the increase of posts of District Judges in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale categories.
Supreme Court Dismisses ED's Plea To Cancel Bail Of Former Maharashtra Dy CM Chhagan Bhujbal In Money Laundering Case
Case Details: Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
The Supreme Court dismissed pleas by Directorate of Enforcement seeking bail cancellation of former Maharashtra Deputy CM and current NCP MLA Chhagan Bhujbal and his nephew Sameer in a money laundering case connected to the Maharashtra Sadan scam.
“Impugned orders granting bail have been passed way back in the year 2018. Therefore, at this stage no case for interference is made out under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The SLPs are dismissed”, the Court held.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also disposed of a plea by Bhujbal against the Bombay High Court's 2016 judgment rejecting challenge to his arrest in the money laundering case.
“As the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in 2018, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the question of illegality of the arrest of the petition. However, that issue will remain open which can be agitated by the petitioner at the appropriate stage in an appropriate petition”, the Court held.
Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi In FIR Over Instagram Clip With “Ae Khoon Ke Pyase Baat Suno” Poem
Case Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court issued notice in plea against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to quash an FIR against Congress MP and poet Imran Pratapgarhi. The FIR was registered over an Instagram post featuring a video clip with the poem “Ae khoon ke pyase baat suno” running in the background.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan also granted interim relief to Pratapgarhi ordering that to further steps be taken in regard to the FIR till further orders.
Supreme Court Warns Imposition Of Cost On States Over Not Responding To PIL For Transgender Welfare Boards
Case Details: Kinner Maa Eksamajik Sanstha Trust v. Union of and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 319/2021
While warning imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/- in the event of failure, the Supreme Court gave 6 weeks' time to non-compliant states to file their responses to a PIL seeking establishment of Transgender Welfare Boards.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that multiple adjournments had been granted on earlier occasions. The order was dictated thus:
"Ld. counsel for the petitioner says that some of the states have constituted Transgender Welfare Board, but few other states are yet to do so. The matter accordingly is deferred by 6 weeks for response by the concerned states and the Union of India. Multiple adjournments were granted earlier to the concerned states. If the response, as directed, is not filed within 6 weeks, the concerned states will be [burdened] with the liability of deposit of Rs.20,000/- cost to be deposited to the account of the concerned Legal Services Authority."
Supreme Court Directs Delhi's Defence Colony Welfare Association To Vacate Illegal Possession Of Lodhi-Era Tomb
Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.12213/2019
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), Delhi, for its illegal encroachment of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali 'Gumti', a 500-year-old tomb of archaeological importance. The Court ordered the DCWA to handover the peaceful possession of Gumti within 2 weeks.
It added that in the process of evacuation, no further damage should be done to the Gumti and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is responsible for removing any other encroachment if done. A Court Commissioner has accordingly been appointed by the Court to supervise the handing over of the monument from DCWA to the Land &Development Office, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India (L&DO), the original owner of the building. In 1962, the land where the Gumti is situated was handed over to MCD for its maintenance.
Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Transfer Complaint, Raise Objection Before Magistrate: Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions Co
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking transfer of various cheque dishonour complaints against the petitioner observing that the lack of territorial jurisdiction of court in which complaint is filed cannot be a ground to transfer the complaint to another court.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a petition seeking transfer of 22 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a company from Varanasi, UP to Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Supreme Court Extends Stay On HC Order For Commission Inspection Of Shahi Idgah Mosque
Case Details: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023 and other connected
The Supreme Court extended the interim stay on the order of the Allahabad High Court for the inspection of the Shahi Eidgah Mosque by a Court Commissioner.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was considering the appeals filed by the Mosque Committee challenging the Allahabad High Court's order.
The petitions are filed against the Allahabad High Court's order whereby it transferred to itself the suits from the Mathura court and the December 2023 order of the High Court allowing the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah mosque.
" List in the week commencing 1st April 2025, interim order to continue" the CJI recorded in the order.
Farmers' Protest | 'Positive Developments': Supreme Court On Dallewal Accepting Medical Aid & Farmers Agreeing For Talks With Union
Case Details: Labh Singh v. K A P Sinha and Anr. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 930-933/2024 in SLP(C) No. 6950-6953/2024
Taking note of the fact that Punjab farmers' leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal (who had been on a hunger strike since November 26 last year) has agreed to take medical aid and that the protesting farmers have agreed to hold talks with the Union Government, the Supreme Court kept in abeyance the contempt proceedings initiated against Punjab Government officials over not shifting Dallewal to hospital.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was informed by the Advocate General of Punjab Gurminder Singh along with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State of Punjab, that Dallewal(who has been on hunger strike for MSP and other issues) and other farmers' leaders have accepted medical intervention after a high-level deputation from the Union Government met the protesting farmers on January 18. The Court expressed that it is hopeful that Dallewal will take care of his health to pursue his cause.
'Why 270 Persons Lying Detained In Transit Camps?': Supreme Court Asks Assam Chief Secretary To Appear, Probes Steps Taken To Deport
Case Details: Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
Disappointed with Assam government's affidavit in a matter pertaining to detention of foreign nationals at a transit camp, the Supreme Court directed Chief Secretary of the state to appear before it (through virtual mode) on the next date and explain non-compliance with the court's earlier order seeking information.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, while dealing with the issue of deportation of about 270 persons in the detention centre/transit camp at Assam, including 66 from Bangladesh. Earlier, it had asked Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Assam government to state how they planned to deport the said foreign nationals.
The order was dictated thus: "Time of 6 weeks was granted to the state to file compliance affidavit. We expected the state to put on record reasons for detaining 270 foreign nationals in the transit camp and details of the steps taken by the state government for deporting the detenus in detention camp. We find from the annexure to the affidavit that some of the foreigners are languishing in the camps for about 10 years and more. The affidavit does not give any justification for detaining 270 persons and moreover steps taken to deport them are not set out. This is gross violation of orders of this court. We direct Chief Secretary of the State of Assam to remain present through VC and explain the non-compliance."
Supreme Court Expresses Dismay Over Andhra Pradesh Govt's Failure To Remove Illegal Bunds/Fish Tanks From Kolleru Lake Area
Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
While dealing with the TN Godavarman case, the Supreme Court expressed dismay over State of Andhra Pradesh's failure to remove illegal encroachments from the Kolleru Lake area and expressed that if need be, the state will have to deal with the problem with an "iron hand".
The Court found no merit in the defense that due to local fishermen's obstruction, among other things, the state was unable to fully comply with the directions issued by the Court in 2006 with regard to demolition of illegal encroachments in the form of fish tanks/bunds in a timely manner.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran said,
"we are of the opinion that the State ought to have had a dialogue with the opposing farmers and educated them that neither the Government Notification nor the directions of this Court would cause any hindrance in their continuing with their traditional fishing activities."
The order was passed in a contempt petition filed by one K Mrutyunjaya Rao, alleging that State of Andhra Pradesh was in non-compliance with the Court's judgment of 10.04.2006, whereby fish tanks/bunds constituting illegal encroachment in the Kolleru Lake area were directed to be removed in a time-bound manner. This petition further alleged that besides encroachment, the subject area was suffering from solid waste dumping and discharge of untreated wastes and effluents (from industries, etc.).
Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer Plus 30% Of Other EC Posts For Women Lawyers In Delhi Tax Bar Association And Delhi Sales Tax Bar Association
Case Details: Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council of Delhi and Anr., SLP(C) No. 24485/2024 (and connected matters)
The Supreme Court directed reservation of the post of Treasurer and 30% of other Executive Committee posts for women lawyers in the Delhi Tax Bar Association and Delhi Sales Tax Bar Association.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating,
"The earmarking of the post of Treasurer and 30% of Executive Members exclusively for women candidates, as directed vide order dt. [...] in respect of the Delhi District Bar Associations shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Delhi Tax Bar Association (including Sales Tax Bar Association) also. In other words, the post of Treasurer and 30% posts of Executive members in the Delhi Tax Bar Association and Delhi Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd) shall remain earmarked/reserved for the women candidates, subject to the same eligibility conditions as have been prescribed in our previous order dt. [...]"
Indefinite Suspension Not Permitted; Consider Reinstatement Of Tihar Jail Officials Suspended In Unitech Case: Supreme Court
Case Details: Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10856/2016
Dealing with an application filed in the Unitech case, the Supreme Court directed the competent authority to decide within 4 weeks the issue of reinstatement of 32 Tihar jail officials, who were suspended pursuant to its 2021 order for extending undue help and assistance to ex-Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra & Ajay Chandra while they were in jail.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order, saying that indefinite suspension cannot be permitted as it causes significant loss to the public exchequer. It was further observed that the concerned officials have remained under suspension for over 3.5 yrs.
Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified Under S. 34 & S.37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Refers To 5 Judge Bench
Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021
The Supreme Court referred to a 5-judge constitution bench the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed that while considering the scope of powers of the Court to modify arbitral awards, an examination of the scope and contours of S. 34 and 37 will also be needed. The Court would also need to see the extent to which modification powers can be given if such modification is allowed.
'Badly Drafted Petition': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDS System Of Income Tax Act
Case Details: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India | W.P.(C) No. 20/2025
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging the provisions of the Income Tax Act which impose an obligation on private employers to deduct tax at source (TDS) on the salaries paid by them.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said that the petition filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay was "badly drafted" and asked him to approach the High Court.
"This is a very badly drafted petition. You move the High Court. There are judgements where the provisions of the tax law are upheld," CJI told the petitioner who appeared in person.
Fake Lawyers' Issue: Supreme Court Says Verification Of Advocates Must Be Expedited, Seeks BCI Report In 8 Weeks
Case Details: Bar Council of India v. Poonam Ashok Goud| Diary No. - 54008/2023
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the delays in the verification of advocates' law degrees and enrolment by the Bar Councils.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a transfer petition by the BCI. The CJI, referring to the long pending degree verification procedure opined :
"It is a very serious thing. The verification drive must be expedited. There has to be a timeline for this"
Considering the same, the bench directed the BCI to file an updated status report in 8 weeks.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Karnataka Police's Plea Against Actor Darshan's Bail In Renukaswamy Murder Case
Case Details: State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan., SLP (Crl) No. 516-522/2025
The Supreme Court today(January 24) issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Karnataka State Government has filed a plea before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court granting bail to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy Murder Case.
Appearing for the State of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Siddarth Luthra at the outset submitted: "This is one of those disturbing matters where the High Court [of Karnataka] has completely white-washed the whole case. Mylord, please see the kind of torture this man was put to...It's quite disturbing. He is picked-up in daylight..."
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that it would not stay the operation of the order as it would amount to cancellation of bail but nevertheless directed that reliance shall not be put on the findings of the Karnataka High Court.
Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer Post For Women In Bengaluru Advocates' Association; Suggests 30% Women Reservation In General Council
Case Details: Kavitha. H.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1910/2025 (and connected cases)
As an interim measure, for the purposes of Bengaluru Advocates' Association elections scheduled for February 2, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that the post of Treasurer be exclusively earmarked for women candidates. It further said that the High-Powered Committee and the Chief Returning Officer may consider desirability of reserving at least 30% of other Governing Council posts for women lawyers, to ensure their adequate representation.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order noting that the concerned Regulations do not expressly bar reservation of posts for women lawyers. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued directions similar to those passed in the case of Delhi High Court and District Bar Associations.
'How Can State Say It Doesn't Have Money?': Supreme Court Questions Maharashtra Govt Over Solid Waste Management Projects
Case Details: Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation v. Charan Ravindra Bhatt
The Supreme Court questioned the Maharashtra Government over not allotting funds for the solid waste treatment plants in Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation and directed them to file an affidavit specifying when the funds would be released.
The Court also asked the State to specify how many Municipal Corporations have complied with the 2016 Solid Waste Management Rules.
The Court had summoned the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department after criticising the State's stand that there were no funds for the projects.
Following that, Dr H. Govindraj IAS, Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department, appeared (through VC) before a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Chandigarh Mayor Seeks Mayoral Elections By 'Show Of Hands', Cites Last Year Fiasco; Supreme Court Considers Appointing Independent Observer
Case Details: Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., Diary No. 4190-2025
Chandigarh Mayor Kuldeep Kumar (Aam Aadmi Party) has approached the Supreme Court praying that the Chandigarh Mayoral Elections scheduled for January 30 be held by 'show of hands' instead of 'secret ballot' to ensure fairness in the process.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and called for the response of the UT administration on the appointment of an Independent Observer to conduct "free and fair" elections. On its part, the bench expressed inclination to appoint a retired judge to oversee the election. Listing the matter on January 27, it said that in the meantime, the election process shall continue.
High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal Under Article 32 Of Constitution: Supreme Court
Case Details: Vimal Babu Dhumadiya v. State of Maharashtra, Diary No. – 1995/2025
The Supreme Court held that a High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court added that if petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment for not being heard, they can either pray for its recall or challenge the same through a special leave petition.
“In our considered opinion, under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared as illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.,” opined the Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.
Did NOIDA Authorities Pay Excess Compensation To Landowners? Whether NOIDA Lacks Transparency? Supreme Court Asks SIT To Probe
Case Details: Virendra Singh Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate whether the officers of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) paid excess land acquisition compensation to certain land owners.
The Court also asked the SIT to examine "whether the overall functioning of NOIDA lacks transparency, fairness and commitment to the cause of public interest."
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order while considering a petition filed by a Law Adviser and Legal Officer of NOIDA seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case which was registered over the allegation that huge amount of compensation was released in favour of some land owners over and above their legal entitlement.
Other Developments
'Either You Decide Or We'll Hear': Supreme Court Gives Last Chance To Union On Balwant Singh's Mercy Plea, Posts On March 18
Case Details: Balwant Singh v. UOI & Ors, W.P.(Crl.) No. 414/2024
The Supreme Court stated that either the Union Government will take a decision or the Court will decide on the merits of the mercy petition filed by Balwant Singh Rajoana, Babbar Khalsa terrorist, seeking commutation of the death sentence awarded to him in the Punjab CM Beant Singh assassination case.
He is seeking commutation on the grounds of delay in considering the mercy petition pending before the President of India since 2012.
Shocked To See Many Non-Meat Products Having Halal Certification: Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court
Case Details: Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind Halal Trust v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 24 of 2024 (and connected cases)
During the hearing of the pleas challenging Uttar Pradesh government's ban on halal-certified products, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged before the Supreme Court that halal-certified products are costlier and the Court may have to consider the issue of people all across the country having to buy costlier halal-certified products just because they are demanded by a few.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it for hearing in the week commencing March 24, noting that the petitioners already stand protected from coercive action by virtue of the Court's earlier order(s). Asking the respondent-Union to serve copies of its affidavit on the petitioners, the Court gave time for filing of rejoinder.
During the hearing, SG Mehta expressed "shock" over the kind of products, other than meat-based, which are sought to be sold as halal-certified. "So far as Halah meat etc. is concerned, nobody can have any objection. But your Lordships would be shocked, as I was shocked yesterday, even cement used is to be halal-certified! Sariyas (iron bars) used have to be halal-certified...Water bottles which we get are required to be halal-certified...", he said.
Senior Designations | No Scope To Reduce Marks If Candidate Has Integrity Or Character Issues: Supreme Court Expresses Concerns
Case Details: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The Supreme Court expressed concern about the lack of scope to reduce marks if there are doubts regarding the integrity and character of a candidate for designation as a Senior Advocate in the procedure provided in the authoritative judgment of the Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India.
“For 20 years of practice, he (candidate) gets 20 marks. But there is no scope to reduce the marks even if there are issues of integrity and character of the lawyer,” Justice Abhay Oka said, referring to the 2017 judgment.
Pointing to the relevant paragraph of the judgment that prescribes the process, Justice Oka questioned – “Is there anything in the judgement that says this is not conclusive? Because this para says 'make the entire assessment based on the point system given below'. This para doesn't say that it can be ignored if the full bench finds anything indicating something else (against the candidate).”
'We're Pained': Supreme Court On Plea Of Christian Man Unable To Bury Father In Native Village In Chhattisgarh
Case Details: Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., SLP(C) No. 1399/2025
The Supreme Court heard a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court of Chhattisgarh's order dated January 9, 2025, whereby, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea to bury his father, who was a Christian pastor, in the Chindwara village graveyard. While keeping the matter to be heard on Wednesday, the Court expressed that it is pained that the State and the High Court have not been able to resolve the issue and the petitioner had to come to the Supreme Court to bury his father.
As per the petition, the petitioner is a Tribal Christian. His father died on January 7 due to prolonged illness and old age illness after which, their family wanted to hold the last rites and bury his mortal in the area specified for Christians in the village graveyard. As per the SLP, some villagers aggressively objected to it and threatened them with dire consequences if the petitioner carried out the burial in the village graveyard.
When the villagers turned violent, the petitioner's family made a report to the police however the police exerted pressure on them to take the body out of the village. As a result of which, the body has been lying in the mortuary since January 7.
Can HC Appoint Sole Arbitrator When Arbitration Clause Provides For Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ? Supreme Court To Consider
Case Details: M/S R.S. Construction v. Building Construction Department | SLP(C) No. 000979 - / 2025
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue of whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 if the arbitration agreement between parties provides for unilateral appointment in violation of the decision in CORE v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Patna High Court which refused to appoint an arbitrator under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in a tender-related dispute. Here, the petitioner who is a private party entered into a work contract with the Building Construction Department of Govt. of Bihar. The High Court ultimately rejected the request of appointing a sole arbitrator.
Mathura Mosque Committee Urges Supreme Court To Close Centre's Right To File Reply In Challenge To Places Of Worship Act Due To Delay
Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 1246/2020 (and connected cases)
In the pleas challenging constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Mathura Shahi Masjid Committee has filed an application assailing the Centre's delay in filing response and seeking that the latter's right to file reply be closed so that the matter can proceed.
It may be recalled that a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, KV Viswanathan is dealing with a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act, which prohibits the conversion of religious character of places of worship from their status as of August 15, 1947. The bench is also seized of a petition filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking implementation of the Act.
Supreme Court Proposes To Appoint Ad-Hoc Judges In High Courts With High Criminal Appeals Pendency
Case Details: Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary S.N. Shukla I.A.S. (Retd) v. Union of India and Ors. |W.P.(C) No. 1236/2019
The Supreme Court proposed to modify its earlier decision which said that ad hoc judges can be appointed in High Courts only when vacancy is 20% or more of the total sanctioned strength of the High Court.
The special bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices BR Gavai and Suryakant was hearing the matter relating to the pending appointment of Ad Hoc Judges in various High Courts in light of the 2021 decision in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary V N Shukla IAS (Retd) v. Union of India.
Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging HC Order To Register FIR On Witness Statements Before Justice Hema Committee
Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors, SLP (C) No.25250-25251/2024
The Supreme Court reserved the judgment in the three Special Leave Petitions filed challenging the Kerala High Court's October 2024 direction to the police to register FIRs on statements made by women actors to the Justice Hema Committee regarding the abuses they faced in the Malayalam cinema industry.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sajay Karol reserved the order.
Direct ECI To Check & Verify EVM's Burnt Memory & Symbol Loading Unit: ADR's Plea In Supreme Court
Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India and Anr. | MA 40/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 434/2023
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider on February 11 an application of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to include the checking and verification of burnt memory of EVMs in their Standard Operating Procedures.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta ordered to list the matter for hearing on February 11 along with another similar case titled Karan Singh Dalal v. ECI seeking verification and checking of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the 2024 Haryana elections.
The matter is a Miscellaneous Application filed by ADR in the case ADR v. Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment on April 26, 2024 with respect to EVM-VVPAT verification.
Supreme Court To Hear Plea On Difficulties Of Persons With Blindness & Low Vision To Complete Digital KYC Process
Case Details: Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 49/2025 & Pragya Prasun v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 289/ 2024
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(January 21) issued notice in a writ petition seeking directions for the concerned authorities to frame guidelines providing appropriate methods to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC with a view to make the process accessible for persons with blindness/low vision.
It also seeks to ensure accessibility and reasonable accommodation in accessing financial, telecom services and government schemes by persons with disabilities specifically blindness/low vision.
The petition has been filed by Advocate Amar Jain, who has 100% blind. The petitioner has argued in the writ petition that he regularly suffers from various KYC's formalities online due to a lack of accessible identification methods for conducting the KYC process digitally. It is stated that the current KYC process involves taking a selfie, signing with pen & paper, putting a signature on screen using mouse, printing and rescanning or clicking photos of filled up form, extremely short duration of OTPs, etc which remains inaccessible for persons with disabilities. Therefore, violates the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Constitution of India.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued notice in this writ petition and tagged it with another writ petition (Pragya Prasun & Ors v. UOI) currently being heard by the same bench.
Baroda Cricket Association In Supreme Court Against Decree To Pay Rs 64 Lakhs To Senior Advocate As Fees
Case Details: Baroda Cricket Association v. Srinivasan Ganesh | SLP (c) No.23304/2024
The Baroda Cricket Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging a decree asking it to pay over Rs 64 lakhs to Senior Advocate Srinivasan Ganesh towards professional fee.
The Association is challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court on August 22, 2024.
On January 21, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan urged the parties to settle the matter. Earlier, in November 2024, the Court had stayed the execution of the money decree to the tune of Rs.64,35,000/-.
Review Sought Of Supreme Court Order Rejecting Plea To Confiscate Electoral Bond Donations
A review petition has been filed by Advocate Dr. Khem Singh Bhati seeking a review of the Supreme Court's order dated August 2, 2024, whereby the plea to confiscate Rs.16,518 crores received by the political parties under the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was held unconstitutional, was dismissed.
The Supreme Court bench headed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while dismissing the petition had stated that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum governing criminal procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Delhi Ridge Tree Felling Contempt Case | Supreme Court Reserves Judgment; To Take Fresh View, Not Swayed By Previous Benches' Orders
Case Details: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024
The Supreme Court reserved its decision in the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling Contempt Case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
The bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice NK Singh heard the arguments of the parties in the matter. During the hearing, the bench clarified that it would consider the matter from a fresh perspective without being influenced by the views of the previous two benches who were considering the issue.
" We would look to take a completely fresh look, that should also be part of our sense of neutrality- that we are not swayed by one particular order or dissuaded by another order, we should have a completely independent view" Justice Suryakant said.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea For CBI/SIT Investigation Into Murders Of 3 Members Of Dalit Family In MP
Case Details: Badi Bahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., W.P.(Crl.) No. 41/2025
The Supreme Court today(January 22) issued notice in a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation/Special Investigation Team into the alleged killing of three members of a Dalit family, including her 20-year-old Anjana Ahirwar.
It is alleged by the petitioner that the state police investigation has been derailed due to the influence of former Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Bhupendra Singh. Therefore, she has sought a transfer of trial outside Madhya Pradesh on the grounds that the State has failed to carry out unbiased investigation as well as to protect witnesses.
Supreme Court To Pass Orders On SCBA & SCAORA Application To Clarify Direction On Recording Lawyers' Appearances
Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
The Supreme Court said that it will pass orders clarifying the directions on the recording of appearances of advocates in cases.
A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Miscellaneous Application jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking clarifications of the direction passed in September 2024 that only the appearances of those lawyers who argue or appear in a case would be recorded. The said direction was passed in the case Bhagwan Das v. State of UP in which the Court issued CBI enquiry against lawyers who filed a fake SLP by forging the signatures of a party in the vakalatnama.
Supreme Court Declares AoR Exam 2024 Results; 356 Advocates Qualify
The Supreme Court declared the results of the Advocates-on-Record exam 2024. 356 Advocates qualified.
Contempt Petition Filed In Supreme Court Against Demolition Of Property At Sambhal, UP
Case Details: Mohammed Ghayoor v. Rajender Pensiya and Ors., Diary No. 2651 of 2025
A contempt petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against Uttar Pradesh authorities for alleged violation of order dated November 13, 2024 restraining demolition actions across the country without prior notice and opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner claims that a part of his property, situated at Sambhal, was demolished by authorities between January 10 and 11, 2025 without any prior notice or hearing, despite the Court's clear directions.
Life Convict Swami Shraddhanand Moves Supreme Court For Early Decision On His Mercy Petition
Case Details: Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 5/2025
Swami Shraddhanand alias Murali Manohar Mishra, the 85-yr-old self-styled godman who has been in jail since about 30 years following conviction for the murder of his wife Shakereh Khaleeli (granddaughter of Dewan of Mysore, Sir Mirza Ismail), has moved the Supreme Court seeking expeditious decision on his mercy petition.
The matter was listed before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, which adjourned it at the request of Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj (for Union), giving him 2 weeks' time to obtain instructions.