Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on 28/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 131 — Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 — Section 6 — The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s authority to register cases in West Bengal after withdrawing consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act — The main issue is the maintainability of the suit, which focuses on whether the CBI can continue to register and investigate cases without the state’s consent — The State argues that post-withdrawal of consent, the CBI’s actions are unconstitutional and violate federalism principles — The Union of India argues that the suit is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution and that the CBI is under the superintendence of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) — The Court rejected the Union’s preliminary objections, stating that the jurisdiction under Article 131 is applicable and the dispute involves a question of law on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends — The suit will proceed on its merits, with the next hearing scheduled for August 13, 2024.

Jul 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 502 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…

Constitution

Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 9 — Burden of proof — A person who is suspected of being a foreigner and whose case is referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) under the Foreigners Act, 1946, must be given an opportunity to prove that they are not a foreigner — The burden of proof is initially on the state to establish a prima facie case that the person is a foreigner — If the state succeeds in doing so, the burden of proof shifts to the person to prove that they are an Indian citizen — The court must examine the evidence produced by both sides and make a determination based on a preponderance of evidence — If the state fails to establish a prima facie case, the person cannot be declared a foreigner — The court must also ensure that the person’s right to a fair trial is not violated and that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention or deportation -Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665 (Referred).

Jul 13, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 511 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Constitution

Water sharing Dispute — Sharing of Yamuna water between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh — The court found that the issue is complex and sensitive, and that it lacks the expertise to decide on the matter — Instead, the court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB), a body constituted with the agreement of the parties in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consider the issue — The UYRB has already directed the State of Delhi to submit an application for the supply of additional 150 Cusec of water on humanitarian grounds, and the court directed that the application be made by 5 p.m. today and that the UYRB convene a meeting tomorrow to take a decision on the matter.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra…

Constitution

Rule for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 – Rule 6 – The case involves appeals against the order of the Patna High Court which directed a de novo trial and made observations against the Special Judge’s approach in conducting the trial – The appeals raise questions regarding the legality of the High Court’s order, the conduct of the trial by the Special Judge, and the application of video conferencing rules in court proceedings – The appellant challenges the High Court’s order of remittal and the observations made against the Special Judge – The respondent defends the High Court’s decision and the observations made therein – The Supreme Court’s judgment addresses the legal provisions for conducting a trial, witness protection, fair trial principles, and the supply of documents to the accused – The Court examines the rules for video conferencing, witness protection scheme, and the importance of a fair trial in the criminal justice system – The judgment discusses the procedural safeguards in the CrPC, 1973, and their substantive elements that protect constitutional rights – The Court emphasizes the need for due compliance with procedural laws to ensure a fair trial and the rights of all stakeholders, including the accused, the victim, and society

Jun 2, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNITA DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti,…

You missed

Direct Taxation Income Tax

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed.

May 28, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34.

May 28, 2026 sclaw