Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Fair Investigation — The Court emphasizes that the petitioner has a fundamental right to a fair investigation and trial, which is inherently linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. – Transfer of Investigation to Independent Agencies — The Court clarifies that while no party has an absolute right to choose the investigating agency, transfer of an investigation to an independent agency like the CBI or SIT can be ordered in exceptional circumstances — Such transfers are justified when there are serious allegations against high-profile officials, political interference is suspected, or the integrity of the investigation is in doubt.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 930 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KABIR SHANKAR BOSE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and…

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 789 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 ( Before : Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Surya Kant, M.M.…

Constitution

Child Marriages — Restraint of — The petitioner, an NGO, argues that despite the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, child marriages remain prevalent in India —They seek stronger enforcement and support systems for child brides —The main issue is the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective guidelines and enforcement mechanisms — The petitioner highlights the high rate of child marriages, the ineffectiveness of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and the need for comprehensive support for child brides — The Union of India attributes child marriages to societal perceptions and economic pressures, and outlines various government programs aimed at reducing child marriages —The court acknowledges the persistence of child marriages and the need for stronger enforcement and support systems — The court emphasizes the socio-economic determinants of child marriage and the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the issue — The court refers to various laws and international conventions that recognize child marriage as a violation of human rights — The court calls for comprehensive measures, including legal enforcement, judicial measures, community involvement, awareness campaigns, and support systems for child brides.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 790 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Sections 5(1)(b) and 8(2) — Grant of Indian Citizenship — Respondent born in Singapore in 1999 to Indian parents who later renounced their Indian citizenship, applied to resume Indian citizenship in 2017 —Whether respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) and if he qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) — Petitioner argued he is entitled to Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in undivided India and his parents’ birth in independent India — The Union of India contended that respondent’s parents lost Indian citizenship upon acquiring Singapore citizenship, making respondent ineligible under the cited sections — The Supreme Court ruled that respondent is not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) or Section 5(1)(b) — The court found that respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law when they acquired Singapore citizenship, and thus Section 8(2) does not apply — The court emphasized the plain language of the Citizenship Act, stating that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions — The appeal by the Union of India was allowed — However respondent may apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 792 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. PRANAV SRINIVASAN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…

Constitution

Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 2008 — Sections 3 and 31 — The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) challenged judgments of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) regarding tariff determination for aeronautical services — Whether AERA, a quasi-judicial body, can file an appeal against TDSAT’s judgment — AERA argued that it has the right to appeal under Section 31 of the AERA Act — The respondents contended that AERA, being a quasi-judicial body, cannot appeal against TDSAT’s decisions — The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of AERA’s appeals and the nature of its functions — The court analyzed whether tariff determination is an adjudicatory function and the role of quasi-judicial bodies in appeals — The court discussed the principles of natural justice, the distinction between quasi-judicial and regulatory functions, and relevant case law — The judgment clarified the scope of AERA’s powers and the legal framework governing its appeals.

Oct 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr…

Advocates Act Constitution

In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 708 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra…

Constitution POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 15 — Scope of Section 15 — The court clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act criminalizes the storage or possession of any child pornographic material involving a child, regardless of whether the accused has the intention to share or transmit the material. The court further distinguished between the three distinct offences punishable under Section 15(1), (2), and (3) of the POCSO Act. Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 67B — Scope of Section 67B — The court held that Section 67B of the IT Act criminalizes the publication, transmission, or creation of any material depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct — The court clarified that the act of merely viewing or downloading child pornography, without any intention to publish, transmit, or create such material, does not fall within the purview of Section 67B of the IT Act.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 716 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. HARISH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

Constitution

Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — Section 7(1) — Land Dispute — The case involves a land dispute where appellant were directed to vacate or compensate for land in Bangalore, originally requisitioned in 1941 and partially acquired in 1973 — The main issues were the rightful ownership and compensation for the land, and whether the petitioners’ delay in filing the writ petition affected their claim — The petitioners argued they were entitled to rental compensation from 1973 and the return of the unacquired land, claiming the land was not being used by the Defence department — Respondent contended that the petitioners had suppressed key facts, including the sale of part of the land, and that the petition was filed after an unreasonable delay —The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, dismissing the writ petition due to the petitioners’ suppression of facts and the delay in filing the petition — The Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and noted the petitioners’ deliberate suppression of relevant facts — The Court cited principles of equity and the necessity for petitioners to disclose all relevant facts, highlighting that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to an abuse of process — The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court refrained from imposing punitive costs on the petitioners despite their conduct

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 728 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HMT LTD. — Appellant Vs. SMT. RUKMINI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Constitution Service

Service Law — Employment — Caste Certificate — The court cannot question the validity of caste certificates issued by the competent authority after following the due process of law, even if the caste is later de-scheduled or de-notified – The court cannot alter or amend the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, as it has no power to do so within the meaning, content, and scope of these articles.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 634 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. NIRMALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta,…

Advocates Act Constitution

Advocates Act, 1961 — 24(1)(f) — Enrolment fees and miscellaneous charges levied by State Bar Councils (SBCs) for the admission of advocates — The petitioner challenges the SBCs’ practice of charging fees in excess of the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Act, 1961 —Whether SBCs can charge enrolment fees beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act? — Whether the SBCs’ practice of charging additional fees violates the Constitution? — The enrolment fees charged by SBCs exceed the statutory limit prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act —The additional fees charged by SBCs violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution — The Court held that Section 24(1)(f) prescribes the enrolment fee, and SBCs cannot charge additional fees beyond this limit —The court reasoned that charging excessive fees creates entry barriers for marginalized and economically weaker sections, violating the principle of substantive equality — The court clarified that all fees charged at the time of enrolment must be construed as part of the enrolment fee and cannot exceed the statutory limit.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

024 INSC 558 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GAURAV KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw