Home
/

Top Stories
/
Supreme Court Weekly Round-up:...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up: February 10, 2025 To February 16, 2025

Amisha Shrivastava

22 Feb 2025 11:35 AM

Reports/Judgments

S.141 NI Act | 'Director Who's In Charge Of Company' & 'Director Who's Responsible To Company' Are Different Aspects: Supreme Court

Case Details: Hitesh Verma v. M/S Health Care At Home India Pvt. Ltd., Diary No. – 29293/2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 176

The Supreme Court observed that there are twin requirements for an offence to fall under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which talks about the dishonour of a cheque committed by a company. Elucidating, the Court said that the accused person should be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business.

“There are twin requirements under sub-Section (1) of Section 141 of the 1881 Act. In the complaint, it must be alleged that the person, who is sought to be held liable by virtue of vicarious liability, at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. A Director who is in charge of the company and a Director who was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business, are two different aspects. The requirement of law is that both the ingredients of sub-Section (1) of Section 141 of the 1881 Act must be incorporated in the complaint.,” the Court said.

'Abuse Of Process': Supreme Court Quashes 'Cheating' Case Filed Against Parents Of Man For Breaking Marriage Promise

Case Details: Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented By The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 177

The Supreme Court dismissed a cheating case (Section 415 IPC) against the parents for facilitating the marriage of their son to another woman instead of the complainant.

Given the complainant's maturity and background, including her 29 years of age, post-graduate degree, and professional experience, the Court found it difficult to believe the parents' conduct easily influenced her.

The Court observed the trial against the parents would be an "abuse of the process of law" and should be nipped in the bud.

'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause': Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account

Case Details: AC Chokshi Share Broker Private Limited v. Jatin Pratap Desai & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178

The Supreme Court held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause.

Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral award against a husband, finding him jointly liable for the award due to a debit balance in a joint demat account registered in his wife's name.

The Court rejected the contention that the husband's liability constituted a "private transaction" beyond the scope of arbitration. Instead, it held that the arbitration clause, applicable to non-signatories, in conjunction with the husband's active participation in transactions within his wife's account, gave rise to an implied oral agreement establishing joint and several liabilities for both parties.

FIR Inadmissible & Cannot Be Proved Through Investigating Officer If Informant Died A Natural Death: Supreme Court

Case Details: Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 179

The Supreme Court clarified that for an FIR lodged by a deceased person to hold any evidentiary value, its contents must be corroborated and proved. Elaborating, the Court said that if an informant's death has no connection whatsoever with a complaint lodged then the FIR's contents will not be admissible in evidence. Thus, in such cases, the contents cannot be proved through the investigating officer. In other words, unless an FIR is treated as a dying declaration, deposition of FIR contents by the officer would not make the same admissible.

The Court explained that the officer can only identify his and the informant's signature on the FIR. Apart from this, he can also depose about the factum of the FIR being registered by him on a particular date and a police station.

When Appointment Advertisement Is Null & Void, Entire Process Can Be Nullified Without Hearing Appointed Candidates: Supreme Court

Case Details: Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 180

The Supreme Court declared the 2010 recruitment process for Class-IV employees conducted by the Jharkhand government to be illegal and unconstitutional, thereby quashing the entire process. The Court further directed the state government to issue fresh advertisements for the said positions within a period of six months.

Citing factors such as non-mentioning of the number of posts, not specifying the applicable reservation, and changing rule of game mid-way on including interview rounds (not originally mentioned in the advertisement), the Court found the entire recruitment process was done in contravention to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict upholding the termination of several candidates by the Jharkhand High Court without providing an opportunity to hear them. The Court stated that the appointments made through an unconstitutional process cannot be protected, even if candidates have worked for years and were not heard before their appointment cancellation.

The Court observed that the advertisements inviting applications for public employment, which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection, are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency.

"The advertisements which fail to mention the number of posts available for selection are invalid and illegal due to lack of transparency," the Court observed relying on the judgment in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (2014).

“It is a trite law that a valid advertisement inviting applications for public employment must include the total number of seats, the ratio of reserved and unreserved seats, minimum qualification for the posts and procedural clarity with respect to the type and manner of selection stages, i.e., written, oral examination and interviews.”, the Court further observed.

Supreme Court Reprimands Registry For Accepting Affidavit From Party Not Impleaded, Seeks Report On Its Working

Case Details: Harmanpreet Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 181

The Supreme Court again expressed strong displeasure with its Registry's repeated procedural lapses. This time the Court criticized the registry officials for accepting a counter-affidavit from an individual who was not even impleaded as a party in the case.

The Court noted that the Registry is accepting documents from persons not even parties to the case without caveats and often in illegible form. Despite judicial orders highlighting non-compliance with Supreme Court Rules in SLP registrations, the Court said no corrective action appears to have been taken till date.

Based on the aforementioned observation, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) “to submit the report and apprise the Court on the next date as to whether any follow-up action is taken on the Judicial Orders passed by the Court on the working of the Registry, and if yes, what actions have been taken so far.”

Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Police Investigation On Statements Before Justice Hema Committee Regarding Women's Exploitation In Malayalam Cinema

Case Details: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and others | SLP(C) 25250-25251/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 182

The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the directions of the Kerala High Court to register FIRs based on the depositions given by witnesses/victims before the Justice Hema Committee regarding the sexual exploitation of women in the Malayalam cinema field.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that once an information regarding the commisison of cognizable offence is received, the police officer is bound to proceed under the law and that there cannot be a direction to injunct the police's powers to investigate.

The bench pronounced the order disposing of the Special Leave Petitions filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actors challenging the direction issued by the Kerala High Court in October last year.

'Won't Tolerate Allegation That Court Recorded Lawyer's Statement Which Was Never Made': Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Litigant

Case Details: Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. M/S SLS Power Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 183

The Supreme Court reprimanded the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. for alleging that the Court recorded in its order a statement by the lawyer, even though the lawyer never made such a statement.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made against the Court. “We are shocked to read allegations made in the applications. The allegation made is that, though we have recorded statement of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, in fact, no such statement was made before us. We are shocked to know that such allegations are being made against the court, and that also in absence of the lawyers who were present on that day."

The Bench strongly condemned the allegations, stating, "This is an allegation directly made against the court, that we have recorded a statement which was not made across the bar. We deprecate such tendency on the part of the applicants. Moreover, the advocates who appeared on that day have not shown their face today."

The Court dictated that it was imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakhs on the Corporation for each application for making such allegations.

Imprisonment Of Judgment Debtor Drastic Step, Court Must Ascertain If Decree Was Wilfully Disobeyed : Supreme Court

Case Details: Bhudev Mallick Alias Bhudeb Mallick v. Ranajit Ghoshal, Civil Appeal No. 2248 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 184

The Supreme Court observed that imprisonment of a judgment debtor is a drastic step and to exercise such power, the Court must ensure that the judgment debtor wilfully disobeyed its order.

“Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor is no doubt a drastic step and would prevent him from moving anywhere he likes, but once it is proved that he had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court. Failure to exercise this power in appropriate cases might verily undermine the respect for judicial institutions in the eyes of litigants.,” observed the Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan.

Also from the judgment - Imprisonment Of Judgment Debtor Drastic Step, Court Must Ascertain If Decree Was Wilfully Disobeyed: Supreme Court

Grandparents Cannot Have Better Claim Than Father For Child's Custody: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 185

The Supreme Court allowed a father to get the custody of his child from maternal grandparents, observing that grandparents cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard a father's appeal against the High Court's rejection of his habeas corpus petition. The High Court had denied him custody of his child, who had lived with him for about 10 years until the mother's death and was later placed with maternal grandparents, citing the child's comfort with the grandparents and the father's remarriage.

Following this, the Father appealed to the Supreme Court.

Motor Accident Compensation | Disability Certified By Medical Board Cannot Be Reduced Without Ordering Re-Assessment: Supreme Court

Case Details: Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 186

The Supreme Court ruled that a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board should be accepted as such, being expert evidence. The disability percentage cannot be reduced by questioning the Medical Board's findings without ordering a reassessment.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan set aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which reduced the compensation granted to the Appellant (who suffered multiple injuries in a collision and is currently in a comatose state) based on the 100% disability certificate issued by the medical board. Both the MACT and the High Court considered it to be 50%, questioning the validity of the Medical Board's assessment due to the absence of specific testimony from a neurosurgeon.

Compassionate Appointment To Be Granted Only In “Hand-to-Mouth” Cases, Not Due To Mere Fall In Life Standard: Supreme Court

Case Details: Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G. K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 187

The Supreme Court, while determining a case related to compassionate appointment, observed that such appointment should be granted only in “hand-to-mouth” cases, provided that all the other conditions are fulfilled. Explaining, the Court said that such situations would include a family 'below the poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses.

“It is only in “hand-to-mouth” cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such “hand-to-mouth” cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.”

The Court also said that the underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in case of an employee's death is that he/ she was the sole earner for the family. The Court said that there is no straitjacket formula to be applied uniformly in cases of employee dying in harness. Each case has its own peculiar features and the financial condition must be assessed.

Also from the judgment - Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Flags Conflicting Judgments On Whether Scheme Prevalent On Date Of Death Or Date Of Consideration Applies

Supreme Court Relaxes Rule On Listing Bail Pleas Before Same Judge When Roster Changes

Case Details: Shekhar Prasad Mahto v. Registrar General Jharkhand High Court

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 188

The Supreme Court clarified its earlier judgments which mandated that bail applications arising out of the same FIR should be placed before the same bench/judge, taking note of the practical difficulties which arise after roster changes.

If the judge who dealt with the earlier bail application becomes a part of a division bench after a roster change, then the subsequent bail application by another accused in the same FIR might get a delayed listing, as the said judge is not regularly hearing bail applications.

In view of such difficulties, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran clarified that the rule for listing the bail applications before the same judge would not apply in such scenarios, where the previous judge is no longer hearing bail applications due to roster change.

Lottery Distributor Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: Supreme Court Rejects Union's Appeals

Case Details: Union of India and Ors. v. Future Gaming Solutions P. Ltd. and Anr. Etc., C.A. No. 4289-4290/2013 & connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 189

The Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the High Court of Sikkim which declared as unconstitutional clause (zzzzn) of the Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2010.

The said clause introduced the activity of "promotion, marketing, organising or in any other manner assisting in organising game of chance, including lottery" as a new category of taxable service.

By the said order, a bench of then Chief Justice Permod Kohli and S.P. Wangdi of the High Court struck down clause (zzzzn) of the Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010, as ultra vires to the Constitution.

Mention Of S.307 IPC In FIR Doesn't Bar Quashing Of Case On Settlement If Offence Isn't Made Out From Allegations: Supreme Court

Case Details: Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190

The Supreme Court observed that mere mentioning of the non-compoundable offence in an FIR does not bar the High Court from quashing the case based on a compromise, if upon closer scrutiny, the facts do not support the charge.

Citing factors such as the nature of the offense, the severity of injuries, the conduct of the accused, and the impact of crime on society, the Court emphasized that even non-compoundable cases can be quashed based on a compromise.

A bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC (non-compoundable offence) even though a compromise had been arrived between the parties.

No Rigid Rule That Convict Should Undergo Half Of Sentence For Bail At Appellate Stage: Supreme Court

Case Details: Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 191

The Supreme Court has clarified that to suspend sentence during the pendency of appeal, a rigid rule cannot be applied that the convict must have undergone half of the substantive sentence. If a case for grant of relief is otherwise made on merits, the appellate court can grant bail or suspend sentence.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made this significant observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau against an order of the High Court suspending the convict's sentence. The convict was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act. The High Court noted that he had undergone a substantial period of incarceration (4.5 years). The NCB argued that the High Court could not have suspended the sentence as the accused had not undergone half of the sentence.

Senior's Reprimand At Workplace For Official Duties Not Criminal Offence Of 'Intentional Insult' Under S 504 IPC: Supreme Court

Case Details: B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 192

The Supreme Court held that a verbal reprimand at the workplace concerning official duties does not amount to a criminal offense under Section 504 IPC ('intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace').

The Court observed that if the employer or superior official does not question employees work performance, then failing to address an employee's misconduct could set a precedent, encouraging others to behave similarly.

“If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces. Therefore, in our opinion, senior's admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an 'intentional insult with the intent to provoke' within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein.”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta quashed the case against the Director of the National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID), Secunderabad who reprimanded the complainant in front of colleagues following multiple complaints by parents of the students about her negligence in performing her duties.

Article 226 | Writ Court Can Refuse Action Against Illegality To Do Substantial Justice: Supreme Court

Case Details: M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1188/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 193

The Supreme Court reiterated that the writ court does not interfere in cases of mere violation of any statutory provision or norms unless the same has caused injustice. Placing its reliance upon Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana., (1980) 2 SCC 437., the Court said:

“It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not.”

"It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties."

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added that the power of High Courts to issue certain writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. Thus, even if the challenged order is invalid, the High Court can refuse to interfere to do substantial justice between the parties.

Order XXII Rule 4 CPC | No Separate Prayer To Set Aside Abatement Needed If Application To Substitute Legal Heirs Is Filed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) & Ors. v. Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) & Connected Matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 194

The Supreme Court held that if an appeal abates due to the failure to substitute legal heirs, filing a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC eliminates the need for a separate application to set aside the abatement.

“When an application praying for substitution had been made, then, even assuming that it does not have an explicit prayer for setting aside the abatement, such prayer could be read as inherent in the prayer for substitution in the interest of justice.”, the court observed.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and P.K. Mishra heard the case, where the High Court had recalled the restoration of the second appeal, stating that it could not have been restored without an application to set aside the abatement.

Also from the judgment - Order XXII Rule 4 CPC | Supreme Court Explains Correct Procedure To File Applications To Substitute Legal Heirs, Set Aside Abatement & Condone Delay

Permanent Alimony & Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Even When Marriage Is Void Under Hindu Marriage Act: Supreme Court

Case Details: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 195

Answering a reference, the Supreme Court ruled that permanent alimony and interim maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be granted even when the marriage has been declared void.

"A spouse whose marriage has been declared void under Section 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act. Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties. The grant of relief under Section 25 is always discretionary", the Court held.

Also Read - Know The Law | Distinction Between 'Equitable Mortgage' And 'Legal Mortgage': Supreme Court Explains

Regarding the grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of HMA, the Court observed:

"Even if a court comes to a prima facie conclusion that the marriage between the parties is void or voidable, pending the final disposal of the proceeding under the 1955 Act, the court is not precluded from granting maintenance pendente lite provided the conditions mentioned in Section 24 are satisfied. While deciding the prayer for interim relief under Section 24, the Court will always take into consideration the conduct of the party seeking the relief, as the grant of relief under Section 24 is always discretionary.".

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling in response to a reference made by a 2-judge bench led by Justice Vikram Nath last year.

Also from the judgment - Calling A Woman 'Illegitimate Wife' Or 'Faithful Mistress' Violates Her Rights: Supreme Court Criticises Misogynistic Language In Judgment

UP Gangsters Act | Strict Scrutiny Essential When FIR Registered Under Stringent Laws: Supreme Court

Case Details: Jay Kishan and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 196

The Supreme Court ruled that strict scrutiny of the FIR is required registered under stringent laws like the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act to prevent its misuse in property or financial disputes.

The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be disregarded solely based on the registration of a criminal offense. Furthermore, it ruled that authorities cannot be given unrestricted discretion in invoking the stringent provisions of the Act.

“Ultimately, the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be overlooked only due to the reason that criminal cases have been registered against a person. It would be plainly unwise to accord any unfettered discretion to the authorities concerned when it comes to invoking the Act. The more stringent or penal a provision, greater the emphasis and requirement for it to be strictly construed.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah quashed a criminal case against three individuals registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”), upon noting that a property dispute between the parties led to the culmination of an FIR under the Gangsters Act.

Supreme Court Quashes Appointment Of Chairperson Of National Commission For Homeopathy

Case Details: Dr. Amaragouda L v. Union of India and Ors., | C.A. No. 301-303/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 197

The Supreme Court allowed a civil appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana as the chairperson of the National Commission for Homoeopathy.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan held that the appointment was not in accordance with the law and directed Dr. Khurana to leave the office within a week. Officially, Dr. Khurana has 6 months to demit office.

The order states:

"The Respondent shall stepdown from the office of Chairperson forthwith. By forthwith, we mean a week from today to enable him to complete his assignment however without taking any policy decision involved with finances. Fresh process shall be initiated for appointment of the office of chairperson expeditiously. Benefits received by the 3rd Respondent are not touched. However, future benefit shall enure to him on the basis of service rendered him as chairperson, which stands quashed, beyond seven days from date."

'Every Statute Prima Facie Prospective Unless Stated Otherwise': Supreme Court Says 2002 Amendment To CST Act Won't Affect Accrued Rights

Case Details: State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prism Cement Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 13928 of 2015

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 198

The Supreme Court held that though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government's right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the amendment is prospective. Thus, it would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.

The amended Act nowhere stipulates that rights previously accrued stand nullified or all previous exemptions stand cancelled or revoked., the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said.

Young Advocates Must Volunteer To Assist Poor Litigants; Must Break Misconception That Supreme Court Is Accessible Only To Wealthy: SC

Case Details: Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors | Special Leave Petition (C) No.17157 OF 2022

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 199

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of advocates rendering legal services to the needy, without caring for the monetary returns. The Court expressed its appreciation for a young advocate who rendered legal aid to a party-in-person.

The Court expressed that it was a "rare joy" to witness such a selfless service "amidst the rapid commercialization and competition which the legal profession has fallen prey to."

The Court stressed that a crucial aspect of the legal profession is "the role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those with limited means, and to collectively assist in ensuring that the litigant before a court has an assurance of having secured justice at the hands of the courts and particularly from the Apex Court."

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made these observations while deciding a petition filed by a party-in-person for certain claims against a company. Since the party was finding it difficult to make submissions in English, the Court appointed Advocate Mr. Sanchar Anand as an amicus curiae for assistance. The amicus attended fourteen hearings of the case for over two years and helped in reaching a settlement. Although no fees was forthcoming, the Court noted that the amicus "dedicatedly" appeared in the matter and assisted in reaching a just and proper conclusion to this case.

The Supreme Court raised concerns about the rising cost of litigation, which prevented persons without adequate financial means from accessing justice.

Uncomfortable Questions Posed During Judicial Proceedings Can't Be Regarded As Humiliation: Supreme Court

Case Details: Smt. Dhanlaxmi @ Sunita Mathuria & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 200

The Supreme Court observed that statements made in court, and even uncomfortable questions posed to parties, cannot be considered public humiliation, as these actions are necessary for the court to fulfill its duty of ascertaining the truth.

“During court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.”, the court observed.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case, where the petitioner challenged statements and uncomfortable questions raised during writ proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court.

Money Laundering Serious Offence, Courts Can't Grant Bail Casually Without Considering S.45 PMLA Conditions: Supreme Court

Case Details: Union of India Through The Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 201

The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to the individual accused of committing money laundering after noting that the High Court failed to satisfy the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

The Court reiterated that the conditions enumerated in Section 45 will have to be complied with even in respect of application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Also, Section 24 provides that in case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. Therefore, the burden to proof that proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering would lie on the person charged with the offence.

Income Tax Act | No Penalty Under S.271AAA If Undisclosed Income Is Admitted, Explained & Tax Paid Even With Delay: Supreme Court

Case Details: K Krishnamurthy v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 202

The Supreme Court, while determining a tax matter, observed that the undisclosed income, under Section 271AAA(1) of the Income Tax Act, surrendered by the assessee during the search, is not sufficient to levy the penalty.

Essentially, the said provision talks about penalty where a search has been initiated. The explanation reads as:

“(a) “Undisclosed income” means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or……”

In this context, the Apex Court explained that before levying any penalty, the Assessing Officer must satisfy the condition provided in the above explanation.

“Consequently, it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate and prove that undisclosed income of the specified previous year was found during the course of search or as a result of the search.,” the Court added.

Portion Of S. 161 CrPC Statement Used To Contradict Witness Must Be Proved Through Investigating Officer & Marked: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 203

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC of a man after noting that the trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for contradicting the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination with their previously recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the trial court erred by merely reproducing the contradicted portions of the witness's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements in brackets without properly proving the prior statement through the investigating officer. Clarifying the correct procedure, the Court emphasized that when a witness is cross-examined using their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the specific portion used for contradiction must first be formally introduced as evidence through the investigating officer before it can be considered.

The Court stressed that the portion of the previous Section 161 statement would be considered for contradiction only when they are proved through the investigation officer

Supreme Court Upholds Meghalaya Govt's Order To Dissolve Private University For Mismanagement

Case Details: CMJ Foundation v. State of Meghalaya., Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 204

The Supreme Court upheld the decision taken by the Meghalaya Government in 2014 to dissolve the Chander Mohan Jha (CMJ) University, a private University.

The Court also held that the University's decision to self-appoint a Chancellor, without the approval of the Visitor (Governor) was illegal. The State Government ordered the dissolution of the University, by invoking powers under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act for "mismanagement, maladministration, indiscipline, fraudulent intent and failure in the accomplishment of the objectives of the University."

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta noted that the CMJ University was established under the CMJ University Act, 2009 enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. Pertinently, as per the Act, the Sponsor was required to appoint a person suitable to be the Chancellor of the University 'subject to the approval of the Visitor'.

Interest May Be Denied To Party Who Abused Judicial Process: Supreme Court

Case Details: M/s. Tomorrowland Limited v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 205

While interest is usually granted as per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code in commercial disputes to account for the time value of money, the Supreme Court clarified that it may be denied in cases where a party's conduct breaches contractual obligations and undermines judicial authority.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan denied interest on the refund of the forfeited amount, observing that the appellant did not approach the Court with clean hands, engaged in forum shopping by withdrawing a suit from the High Court to file another in a lower court, and failed to comply with the Court's order to deposit ₹15 crores.

“We are conscious of the fact that as a general principle, in commercial disputes, the award of interest pendente lite or post decree is typically granted as a matter of course. This is because such interest serves to compensate the aggrieved party for the time value of money that was due but withheld during the legal process. It reflects an established norm aimed at ensuring fairness and equity in commercial transactions.”, the court said.

Bombay Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty If Possession Is Granted: Supreme Court

Case Details: Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLw (SC) 206

The Supreme Court observed that an agreement to sell specifying delivery of the possession of the property would be deemed as 'conveyance' and would be subject to the stamp duty as per the Bombay Stamp Act.

Emphasizing that stamp duty is levied on the instrument (agreement) and not the transaction, the Court held that even an agreement to sell could attract stamp duty if it grants possession of the property to the buyer, even though the actual transfer of ownership would occur upon the execution of the sale deed.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the case relating to the Bombay Stamp Act where the Appellant was aggrieved by the trial court's and High Court's decision to levy stamp duty on the agreement to sell, which granted possessory rights to him even though the actual ownership would take place on the execution of the sale deed.

Supreme Court Upholds Govt's Power To Withdraw Promise Of Rebate In Larger Public Interest

Case Details: Puja Ferro Alloys P Ltd. v. State of Goa and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 207

While upholding the Goa Government's order to recover the previously granted electricity tariff rebates from several industrial companies, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the government's power to withdraw or modify economic incentives in the interest of public finances.

The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be rigidly enforced in situations where the government's promises to provide incentives conflict with public interest. Specifically, if the rebates or incentives place an undue burden on the public exchequer or state finances, the doctrine may not be applicable.

Principle Of 'Functus Officio' Does Not Apply To Executive Rule-Making Authority: Supreme Court

Case Details: P. Rammohan Rao v. K. Srinivas., SLP(Civil) No. 4036-4038 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 208

The Supreme Court on February 12 observed that the principle of functus officio does not apply to a rule making authority and applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority. It cannot be disputed that the rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio, the Court said.

“The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.”

Filing Of Fresh Bail Application After Rejection Of Earlier Bail Plea Or Cancellation Of Bail Is A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court

Case Details: Vipin Kumar v. State of UP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 209

The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a bail application solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted the filing of a fresh application.

The Court reiterated that the filing of a fresh bail application, after the dismissal of an earlier bail application or the cancellation of the bail granted, was a right.

"Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application," observed a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti.

Orders

'No Response By State On Enquiry Into Complaint Of Defence Witness Intimidation': Supreme Court Stays Trial Against MP Congress MLA

Case Details: Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The Supreme Court stayed the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defence witnesses are being pressurised.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a petition filed by Bharti seeking to transfer the trial to another State. During the hearing, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated.

The Court also orally remarked that an advocate representing the Government must be an officer of the Court and should not act like a mouthpiece of the State.

Cycle-Tracks Not Priority When State Struggling To Provide Basic Needs Like Housing, Hospitals: Supreme Court Refuses PIL

Case Details: Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking direction to have separate cycling tracks in all cities, questioning the feasibility of such a direction when the governments were finding it difficult to even provide basic amenities like shelter and hospitals to the people.

'How Can Convicted Politicians Come Back?': Supreme Court Seeks Union, ECI Stand On Lifetime Bar For MPs/MLAs After Conviction

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) No. 699/2016

In a PIL challenging election of convicted persons as MPs/MLAs, the Supreme Court observed that criminalization of politics is a very major issue and sought the responses of Union of India and Election Commission on the challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was dealing with the public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking life-long disqualification of MPs/MLAs who have been convicted of criminal offences. Vide this PIL, the petitioner has also challenged provisions of the Representation of People Act, which bar convicted politicians from contesting elections only for 6 years after serving the jail term.

'How Could Governor Send Re-passed Bills To President?': Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Tamil Nadu Govt Plea

Case Details: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023

The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against its Governor Dr RN Ravi withholding assent for 12 bills, the oldest of them pending since January 2020. Once the Bills were re-enacted in a special session by the Government, the Governor sent some of the re-passed laws to the President for reconsideration.

Various constitutional issues concerning the interpretation of Article 200 and factual questions have emerged from the four days of the hearing. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has formulated eight questions for the parties.

Supreme Court Summons Chief Secretaries Of AP, Delhi & JK To Explain Failure To Act Against Misleading Medical Ads

Case Details: Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 645/2022

The Supreme Court asked Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir to appear on March 7 virtually and explain why they haven't complied with directions passed by the Court earlier to act against misleading medical advertisements.

Hearing a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association, the Court also asked them to explain why they have not filed their affidavits in terms of the Court's earlier orders regarding enforcement of Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Deploy Security Guards At All ATMs As Banks Say It's Impractical

Case Details: State Bank of India and Others v. Reserve Bank of India and Others | SLP(C) No. 35933-35934/2016

Accepting the argument raised by various banks that it was not practical to deploy security guards at all ATMs round the clock, the Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court in December 2013 for the security of ATMs.

The High Court had directed, inter alia, that security guards should be placed round the clock at all ATMs and that only one customer can enter for one ATM, at a time.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the appellants, requested the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran to make the interim order passed in December 2016 absolute. He submitted that the direction to deploy security guards in all ATMs was not practical.

Should Commercial Suit Be Rejected Under O VII R 11 CPC For Not Following Pre-Institution Mediation? Supreme Court To Examine

Case Details: Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Limited & Anr. | SLP (C) 2753/2025

The Supreme Court will examine the question whether a commercial suit should be rejected at the threshold for not following the pre-institution mediation as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

While issuing notice in a Special Leave Petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar observed :

"The question that requires consideration by this Court is whether, due to non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a suit should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or whether it should be kept in abeyance, directing the parties to first explore the possibility of settlement by instituting mediation."

'Directions Issued Against Mob Violence Binding On All Authorities': Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL To Curb Cow Vigilantism

Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023

Stating that directions already issued against lynching and mob violence, the Supreme Court disposed of a PIL which raised the issue of cow vigilantism and mob attacks.

The Court stated that the directions issued in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are binding on all authorities and that it was not feasible for it to monitor compliance by all States/Union Territories by "sitting in Delhi". It also noted that the prayers raised in the petition were "omnibus" in nature.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,

"Second prayer is with regard to providing redressal in the cases of lynching and mob violence mentioned hereinabove to the victims and their families...a strict compliance with the punitive and remedial measures mentioned in para 14 of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. Insofar as the said prayer clause is concerned, again, if there is non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Tehseen Poonawalla, an aggrieved person would have a remedy available to him in law. However, sitting here in Delhi, we can't monitor incidents taking place in different areas in different states of country. In our view, such micromanagement by this Court would not be feasible. If any other person is aggrieved with the directions, they can approach competent courts for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law."

Decide SP Leader Md Abdullah Azam Khan's Appeal Treating Him As Juvenile On Date Of Offence: Supreme Court To Sessions Court

Case Details: Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 5216/2023

The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Sessions Court to decide the criminal appeal, filed by Samajwadi Party leader Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan against the trial court's order convicting him for an offence under Section 353 IPC (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty), within 6 months.

The Court added that Abdullah Azam Khan's appeal should be decided by treating him as a juvenile as on the date of the offence.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal stated that the Court would grant leave and pass directions to the District Court. It ordered: "Meanwhile, we request the District Court to make an endeavour to dispose of within 6 months."

Supreme Court Seeks Data From High Courts On Pendency Of Commercial Disputes & Available Commercial Court Infrastructure

Case Details: Indian Commercial and Arbitration Bar Association (ICABA) v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 900/2020

In a matter pertaining to implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court called on High Courts across the country to furnish data on pendency of commercial disputes and the infrastructure available for dealing with the same.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a petition seeking directions for time-bound implementation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Earlier, when the matter was taken up in 2023, the Court had asked Union of India to apprise about the status of constitution of commercial courts in different states/UTs.

Don't Delete Data On EVMs Pending Verifications, Reduce Cost For Seeking Verification: Supreme Court Tells ECI

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 sought the reply of the Election Commission to an application filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) seeking directions to the ECI to allow verification of the burnt memory and Symbol Loading Units of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

The Court also told the ECI to not erase or reload the data in the EVMs while carrying out the verification.

ADR filed the application contending that the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the ECI for verification of the EVMs was not in accordance with the April 2024 judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta heard the matter.

Trial Of Engineer Rashid MP Can Continue In Special NIA Court Instead Of MP/MLA Court: Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Details: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI W.P.(C) No. 699/2016

The Supreme Court clarified that trial of Engineer Rashid MP can proceed before the Special NIA Court instead of the Special Court for MPs/MLAs.

The clarification was made in the case where directions were issued for setting up Special Courts for the trials of Members of Parliament/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MPs/MLAs).

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan was hearing an application filed by the Delhi High Court through the Registrar General seeking clarification that "the High Court may authorise that trial of MPs/MLAs (including Ex-MPs/MLAs) who are facing trial of the scheduled offences as prescribed in the Special Acts like NIA Act by the Special Court designated/constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act instead of by the Special Courts created for the trial of MPs/MLAs and thereby enabling the High Court to issue necessary notification/office order in this regard.”

The bench, in its order, noted that one of the accused, namely Engineer Rashid, who was facing trial before the NIA Special Court, had now become an elected Member of Parliament. As the trial began even before his election in 2024, 21 witnesses have been examined by the Special Court under the Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019, the Court allowed the clarification as sought above.

1-Year LL.M. | Supreme Court Asks BCI To Hold Stakeholder Meeting On Concerns About 1-Year Teaching Requirement To Accept 1-Yr LL.M

Case Details: Tamanna Chandan Chachlani v. Bar Council of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 70/2021

In the pleas challenging Bar Council of India's decision (later rescinded) to scrap one-year LL.M. programme and derecognize foreign LL.M. degrees, the Supreme Court suggested that a meeting of all stakeholders be convened to work towards resolution of issues - including the requirement of 1 year teaching experience for 1-year LL.M. degree holders in order for their LL.M. to be recognized.

The Court further indicated that if the issues are not resolved as such, it will hear the matter on merits.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and noted that the only surviving grievance is with regard to Clause 20(3) of the notification dated 02.07.2021 issued by BCI, which insists on 1 year teaching experience for holders of 1 year LL.M. degree - whether obtained from Indian University or foreign University - for the LL.M. degree to be recognized.

Supreme Court Imposes Cost On States For Failure To Report Compliance With Order Directing Implementation Of POSH Act

Case Details: Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors., Diary No. 22553-2023

The Supreme Court imposed Rs.5,000 as a cost on the States for failing to comply with the December 3, 2024 order in which comprehensive directions were passed for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The order particularly emphasised "decentralising" the POSH Act to take on board the private sectors, which the Union also pointed out is a "red flag" because they have been "very hesitant" in implementing the POSH Act, especially in constituting Internal Complaints Committee for hearing complaints pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh passed further orders in addition to the orders passed by this Court on May 12, 2023, and October 22, after it had observed that there were "serious lapses" in the implementation of the POSH Act. It has stated that a copy of the Court's order shall be taken by the respective State counsel to the State Secretaries for compliance and a status report has to be filed in response to the same.

Desilting Of Yamuna Riverbed: Supreme Court Summons UP Jal Nigam Official To Explain Non-Compliance With Directions

Case Details: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 13381/1984

Dealing with the MC Mehta case pertaining to environmental issues in the Taj Trapezium Zone, the Supreme Court summoned Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam's topmost official - its Managing Director - to answer non-compliance with the Court's directions of November, 2024 relating inter-alia to taking of interim measures.

The concerned Managing Director (an IAS officer) has been asked to appear on the next date through VC.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, stating:

"We find that there is no compliance made with order dated 25.11.2024. Very serious issue of [removal of] silt, sludge, garbage upto 5-6 metres in Yamuna has been raised. After considering report of IIT, Roorkee, directions were issued on 25.11.2024...On the next date, Managing Director, UP Jal Nigam will remain present through VC. One week before the next date, he will file his personal affidavit reporting compliance with order dated 25.11.2024."

Supreme Court Rejects Indrani Mukerjea's Plea To Travel Abroad, Expedites Sheena Bora Murder Case Trial

Case Details: Indrani Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 17027/2024

The Supreme Court today(February 12) refused the plea of Indrani Mukerjea, accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, to travel abroad while the trial is pending. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal also directed the expedition of the trial and complete it within one year.

Mukerjea has been accused of murdering her daughter Sheena Bora. She was granted bail in 2022 by the Supreme Court on grounds that she has been in custody for 6.5 years and the trial is likely to be concluded soon.

PMLA Accused Can't Be Kept In Custody If Order Taking Cognizance Of ED Complaint Has Been Quashed: Supreme Court

Case Details: Arun Pati Tripathi v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 16219/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) after noting that the order taking cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been quashed.

The Court questioned the ED for continuing the custody of the accused, who has been in custody since August 2024, after the order taking cognizance was quashed on February 7, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case concerning Arun Kumar Tripathi, an Indian Telecommunications Service Officer, who was arrested by the ED on August 8, 2024 in a money laundering case connected with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam.

The Court observed that provisions of PMLA cannot be misused to keep individuals in jail.

Shelters For Urban Homeless: Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Centre's New Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission

Case Details: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003

In the PIL seeking adequate shelters for homeless persons, the Supreme Court asked Union of India to verify statistics relied upon by the petitioners as well as to seek relevant information from all states/Union Territories so that the issue can be considered on a pan-India basis.

Insofar as it was informed that the Union is in process of finalizing a New Mission on Urban Poverty Alleviation, the Court also asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to place on record the various aspects covered by the said scheme and to take instructions as to by what time the scheme is likely to be implemented.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter. Justice BR Gavai deprecated the distribution of freebies ahead of elections and remarked that it would be better if the homeless are sought to be integrated into mainstream society so that they can contribute to the nation.

Judicial Officers' Pension | 'Centre's Unified Pension Scheme Will Solve Issues', AG Tells Supreme Court

Case Details: All India Judges Association v. UoI and Ors. WP(C) No. 643/2015

In the All India Judges Association case, pertaining to pension-related issues of judicial officers, Attorney General R Venkataramani told the Supreme Court that the Centre has notified a Unified Pension Scheme, which would take care of the concerns of all employees - including judicial officers.

Taking into account the same, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih posted the matter after 12 weeks, to see how the said scheme works out.

"We find it appropriate that the matter [be] adjourned for some time so as to experience how the Unified Pension Scheme works and take a call on the issues involved in the present petitions thereafter", dictated Justice Gavai.

'Mystery': Supreme Court Puzzled Over Anonymous Filings In Chhattisgarh NAN Scam Case; ED, Accused & State Deny Filing

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.

While hearing the ED's plea for cancellation of bail to the accused in the Chhattisgarh NAN Scam, the Supreme Court expressed concern over certain 'confidential notes' filed anonymously in a sealed cover before the bench.

The Court directed the Registrar(Judicial) to inspect, along with the Advocates from both sides.

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuuyan was hearing a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020 to some accused, including Anil Tuteja former IAS officer.

Supreme Court Seeks Maharashtra Govt's Response On Whether Sahara's Versova Plot Is Within Mangrove Forest

Case Details: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Subrata Roy Sahara and Ors. and Ors. CONMT.PET.(C) No. 001820 - 001822 / 2017

While hearing the SEBI v. Sahara matter, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Department of Forest and Urban Development and the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra to give clarity on whether developing Sahara's Vervosa Plot to pay back its creditors would end up intruding into reserved mangrove forest area.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices MM Sundaresh and Bela Trivedi was hearing a batch of contempt petitions against Sahara Group of Companies who were in violation of the Court's 2012 order.

Supreme Court Grants Bail To SP Leader Mohammad Azam Khan And His Son In Stolen Machinery Case

Case Details: Mohammad Azam Khan and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 17240/2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Samajwadi Party leader Mohammad Azam Khan, a former member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Rampur and his son Mohammed Abdullah Azam Khan, former member of the Legislative Assembly from Suar constituency in the stolen machinery case.

A Special Leave Petition was filed by them challenging the January 29 order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to grant them bail.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal granted bail taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, and the period of incarceration undergone. The order states: “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case which include the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants, and that the chargesheet has already been filed, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellants.”

2020 Bengaluru Riots: Supreme Court Denies Bail To Accused, Directs Karnataka Govt To Establish Additional NIA Court For UAPA Offences

Case Details: Shabbar Khan v. National Investigative Agency | SLP(Crl) No. 17214/2024

The Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Shabbar Khan, charge-sheeted in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 case related to the riots which happened in Bengaluru on August 11, 2020. The riots reportedly happened over a Facebook post where derogatory comments were allegedly made about Prophet Muhammad.

A Day After Reserving Orders, Supreme Court Re-lists Bangladeshi Immigrants' Deportation Case On Union's Request

Case Details: Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013

A day after reserving judgment in a case raising the issue of indefinite detention of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country, the Supreme Court re-notified the matter to enable the Union of India to file an additional affidavit containing inputs from the Ministry of External Affairs.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan passed the order upon a mentioning of the case by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who informed that some inputs from the Ministry of External Affairs need to be placed before the Court.

BNSS Allows Supply Of Chargesheet & Case Documents To Victims Free Of Cost: Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

Case Details: Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India, SLP(C) No.7446/2024

The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking directions to authorities for free supply of chargesheets to complainants/victims and issuance of notice to them at pre-trial stage.

It observed that while the first issue stood resolved in terms of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), on the second issue, the Court, under writ jurisdiction, could not direct the legislature to enact law in a particular manner.

"In a writ jurisdiction, neither the High Court nor this Court can direct Legislature to enact a law in a particular manner."

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order after Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave informed that Section 230 of BNSS (unlike Section 207 CrPC) provides for free supply of copy of chargesheet to the victims/complainants and as such, the matter has become infructuous. As per Section 207 CrPC, only the accued had the right to get the copies free of cost.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Jayalalithaa's Niece For Return Of Properties Confiscated In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Details: J Deepa v. Superintendent of Police | SLP(Crl) No. 2208/2025

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by J Deepa, the niece of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking the return of the properties confiscated in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to interfere with the Karnataka High Court's order refusing to release Jayalalithaa's assets to her heirs.

Supreme Court Summons Haryana DGP Over Illegal Arrest Violating 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines

Case Details: Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh and Ors. | Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20330/2023

The Supreme Court directed the personal appearance of the Director General of Police, Haryana, since no action was reported to have been taken against police officials who arrested a person in violation of the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).

In Arnesh Kumar, the Supreme Court passed several guidelines to curb unnecessary and casual arrest, and directed that if the offences are punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment, then arrest should not be the norm. It was directed that police should satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It should also furnish reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest.

Can NCPCR File Complaint Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act Against Unlawful Conversion Of Kids? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jerald Alameda and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6321/2023

The Supreme Court expressed reservations about the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) cannot file a complaint under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, in the absence of a complaint of unlawful religious conversion by a person (or their parents/siblings) who has been illegally converted.

However, the Court did not pronounce anything finally on the issue and kept it open. It directed that the High Court's observations shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case.

Supreme Court Directs States To Implement Amicus Suggestions On E-Prisons Project

Case Details: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant of Bail | SMW (CRL.) NO. 4/2021

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to take steps for the implementation of the suggestions submitted by amicus curiae Devansh A. Mohta on the e-prison project and file a report within 1 month in this regard.

Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest: Supreme Court

Case Details: Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr. | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2783/2025

The Supreme Court upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was observed that a request to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the public interest, cannot be declined.

By an order dated November 11, 2024, passed in a writ petition, the High Court allowed Respondent's plea seeking disclosure of the marks obtained by other candidates, including of himself in the recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk in District Court, Pune, under the RTI Act.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said:

"We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process."

Other Developments

'It's A Poem With Message Of Non-Violence': Supreme Court Questions Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Over Poem

Case Details: Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court questioned an FIR registered by the Gujarat Police against Congress Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem posted on social media.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, considering a petition filed by Pratapharhi challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, observed that the police has not appreciated the true meaning of the poem.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases: Appeals Have To Be Filed Seriously, Not For The Sake Of It, Says Supreme Court

Case Details: S. Gurlad Singh Kahlon v. Union of India | WP (Crl) 9/2016

The Supreme Court agreed to hear in detail a petition seeking the implementation of the recommendations of the Justice SN Dhingra Committee regarding the 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases.

Justice Dhingra committee, constituted by the Supreme Court in 2018, had submitted its report in January 2020 opining that the investigation was derailed in several riot cases and recommended, among others, the filing of appeals against acquittals. Although the Delhi police filed appeals against acquittals, the Delhi High Court dismissed them on the ground of delay.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Delhi Police, informed a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan that letters have been written to the prosecuting agencies to file Special Leave Petitions. Two SLPs were filed and 6 SLPs are to be filed in six other cases, she added.

Justice Oka expressed that the appeals must be filed earnestly and with seriousness. “We are not on any particular outcome, but it must be pursued earnestly and with seriousness,” Justice Oka said.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Appeals Against HC Order Quashing West Bengal SSC Appointments

Case Details: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) SLP (C) No. 009586 - / 2024

The Supreme Court reserved its decision on the batch of pleas challenging the Calcutta High Court's order setting aside the appointments by the West Bengal School Selection Commission for over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching posts in government schools in 2016.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the matter. The SSC appointments had come under the scanner due to the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.

'No Question Of Discrimination In Education': Supreme Court In PIL Seeking Govt School Admission For Rohingya Kids In Delhi

Case Details: Rohingya Human Rights Initiative (Rohringya) and Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 57/2025

In the PIL seeking government benefits and school admissions for Rohingya refugees, the Supreme Court said that education shall be provided to all children without discrimination, but first the status of residence of the Rohingya families needs to be ascertained.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a public interest litigation initiated for grant of school admissions and government benefits to Rohingya refugee families without insistence on Aadhaar cards and irrespective of citizenship status.

Why Bangladesh's Verification Necessary To Deport Illegal Migrants Who Served Sentence? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Case Details: Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013

Reserving judgment in a case raising the issue of indefinite detention of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country, the Supreme Court expressed disappointment with illegal immigrants being made to suffer rigor of prisons despite their having served sentences post-conviction.

The Court also questioned the Union of India as to why there is a need to ascertain nationality of the illegal immigrants from the countries they are to be deported to when the precise charge against them is that they have illegally entered India while being a national of that country.

If Advocate-on-Record Can Authorise A Non-AoR To Appear, What Is AoR Exam's Significance? Supreme Court Asks

Case Details: Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

The Supreme Court again questioned how Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) can authorise another advocate, who is not an AoR, to appear in a case on their behalf.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association seeking to modify certain observations in Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP & Ors where the Court stated that Advocate-on Record can give an appearance of only those advocates who are authorised to appear.

Supreme Court Explores Sentencing Options In Case Where Minor Victim Married POCSO Convict; Flags Systemic Failures In Protecting Girl

Case Details: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, Suo Moto WP(C) No. 3/2023

Dealing with a case where a minor girl victim of sexual assault eloped with and married the man facing charges under POCSO Act, the Supreme Court called for the suggestions of Amici Curiae appointed by it for the prevention of suffering of adolescent girls and their families.

"These are some of the issues very difficult for Court to resolve. When we see such matters, we realize that there are grave limitations on our power", said Justice Abhay S Oka.

To recap, this case arose out of the Calcutta High Court judgment where a division bench acquitted the accused who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for establishing sexual relations with the minor victim, and issued a slew of recommendations including that an adolescent girl must "control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of the society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes".

Can Courts Modify Arbitral Award Under S.34/ 37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Constitution Bench Begins Hearing

Case Details: Gayatri Balasamy v. M/S ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited | SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench began the hearing on 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.

S. 34 provides the outline for applying to set aside an arbitral award. S. 37 of the Act states the instances where an appeal may lie against orders relating to arbitral disputes.

The bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna comprises Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV Viswanathan.

At the outset, the CJI clarified that the court would not go into the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which is pending parliamentary assent.

'How Do You Say Yoga Centre Isn't Educational Institution?' Supreme Court On TN Pollution Control Board's Plea Against Isha Foundation

Case Details: Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Isha Foundation, Diary No. 57906/2024

The Supreme Court questioned the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board over delay in challenging the Madras High Court order which quashed the show cause notice issued to Sadhguru's Isha Foundation for carrying out construction work at Velliangiri hills, Coimbatore between 2006-2014 without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh probed Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman over the delay, pointing out that the impugned order was passed by the High Court about 2 years back (in December, 2022).

MP Iqra Choudhary Approaches Supreme Court Seeking Strict Implementation Of Places Of Worship Act

Case Details: Iqra Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors. Diary No. 2350/2025

Samajwadi Party leader and Member of Parliament, Iqra Choudhary has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the Places of Worship Act 1991.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar tagged the petition with connected petitions, which challenge the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act.

When the matter was taken, CJI verbally remarked, "Why so many new petitions are being filed? Every week we get one."

'Won't Permit Bar To Be Divided On Caste/Religion Lines': Supreme Court In Plea For SC/ST/OBC Reservation In Bengaluru Advocates' Assn

Case Details: Advocates For Social Justice v. Bengaluru Advocates Association and Ors., SLP(C) No. 3847/2025

Dealing with pleas seeking reservation in the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru for lawyers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and backward communities, the Supreme Court expressed that it will neither permit Bar members to be divided on caste/religion lines nor let the issue be politicized.

"There are serious arguable issues from both sides, which can be deliberated in a healthy atmosphere. We don't want the Bars to be divided on caste lines or religion lines...That is not our intention and that we are not going to allow also. Let's not go by slogans. We will also not allow it to become a political playground", said Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh tagged the pleas with a special bench matter (Re: Strengthening and Enhancing the Institutional Strength of Bar Associations v. The Registrar General) coming up on February 17, which pertains to reforms in bar associations.

Supreme Court To Hear In April Plea To Bring Political Parties Under RTI Act

Case Details: Association For Democratic Reforms v. Union of India Cabinet Secretary | Diary No. – 16902/2015

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in April the issue of whether all political parties can be considered as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act,2005.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a batch of pleas seeking directions to bring all political parties as "public authorities" under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Feasibility Of Introducing Uniform Sentencing Policy Referred To Law Commission: Union Informs Supreme Court

Case Details: Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr | Miscellaneous Application No. 238/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3924/2023

The Supreme Court was informed by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive and uniform sentencing policy has been referred to the Law Commission of India.

This comes after a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and SVN Bhatti in May, last year, recommended the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to consider introducing a comprehensive policy on sentencing within 6 months.