Supreme Court of India Judgements

46790 Judgements hosted as on 02/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: May 2025

Constitution Contempt

Freedom of Speech and Expression — Open Justice — Subjudice Principle — Contempt of Court – Such a direction, being a form of prior restraint, must satisfy twin tests of necessity and proportionality, applicable only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of trial or proper administration of justice — Courts must be open to public observations, debates, and constructive criticism, even on subjudice matters, as open justice instills faith and checks judicial caprice

May 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 656 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. Vs. ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

Acquittal

Hostile witnesses — Effect — When a large number of witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turn hostile, prosecution case often collapses for want of evidence — While reasons for hostility can be varied (coercion, fear, monetary consideration, etc.), it cannot automatically lead to conviction based on prior S. 161 statements or IO’s testimony about such statements, as these are not substantive evidence — Court’s consternation at collapse of a serious case due to witness hostility cannot be a reason to convict on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, amounting to a moral conviction anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 657 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RENUKA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.…

State Laws

Sales Tax — Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Kerala Act) — Section 5A — Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act) — Section 7A — Purchase Tax — Liability of assessee purchasing goods from dealers exempt from sales tax — Where goods are purchased from dealers who are exempt from payment of sales tax by virtue of notifications or exemptions under the Kerala Act or Tamil Nadu Act, such a purchase is considered a purchase of “goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax” within the meaning of Section 5A of the Kerala Act or Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu Act

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 661 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH C.T. KOCHOUSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC. ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, CJI., Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) a— Illegal gratification — Demand and Acceptance — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Where prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant (Revenue Inspector) suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses (PW7) Minor discrepancies may not be fatal, but serious contradictions going to root of matter, rendering evidence untrustworthy, are grounds for acquittal.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 655 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARITALA SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 [@…

You missed

Cr P C

Prosecution can produce inadvertently omitted documents with court permission as Section 173(5) CrPC is directory, authenticity issues are for trial.

Jun 2, 2025 sclaw
Environment

Penal liability under Section 26 NGT Act for non-compliance requires proof of responsibility and power over the prohibited act, absent which penalty on individuals like the Mayor is unsustainable.

Jun 2, 2025 sclaw
C P C

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where triable issues of title and validity of sale deeds based on revoked authority and unregistered documents exist, or where multiple causes of action allow for survival of other reliefs.

Jun 1, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 — Section 3 — Recognition of villages — State’s duty to consider objections fairly — Failure appears to have occurred in present case — Objections by appellant regarding ancestral land ownership not adequately considered by State authorities before recommending recognition — Court cannot definitively decide complex factual disputes regarding land ownership and customary practices — Appropriate for State authorities to resolve such issues.

Jun 1, 2025 sclaw