Supreme Court of India Judgements

46960 Judgements hosted as on 08/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 233(2) — Appointment of District Judges — Eligibility for in-service candidates — Clause (2) not prescribing qualifications for those already in judicial service — Such candidates not barred from direct recruitment — Interpretation to the contrary renders first part of Clause (2) redundant.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1208 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH REJANISH K.V. Vs. K. DEEPA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K.…

Constitution

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 — Section 4(iii)(c)(I) — Age-restriction for intending couples — Retrospective application — Intending couples who commenced surrogacy procedures (including embryo creation and freezing) before the Act’s commencement date (25.01.2022) are not subject to the age-restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I). The Act, unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective, is presumed to be prospective. The commencement of freezing embryos signifies a vested right and a crystallized intention, preventing subsequent age-bar imposition from frustrating the process.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1209 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAYA KUMARI S AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(c) — Freedom of association — Not absolute — Restrictions can be imposed for good governance and public interest, especially in sports administration to ensure transparency, accountability, and professionalism — AIFF Constitution’s mandate for State associations to conform to its provisions supported.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1131 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION Vs. RAHUL MEHRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil…

Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1116 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE: THE WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025 (1) ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, J. ) Writ…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of Fundamental Rights — Death sentence cases — Article 32 as continuing safeguard even after conventional judicial process has concluded — Power to intervene under Article 32 to prevent constitutional breach when human life hangs in the balance. Finality of Judgments — Reopening of concluded matters — Article 32 available to remedy grievances when fundamental rights are violated — Curative petition limitations — Exception for miscarriage of justice and perpetuation of irremediable injustice.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1043 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Constitution

Petition by High Court Judge challenging ‘In-House Procedure’ for judicial misconduct inquiry — Petitioner sought declaration of certain paragraphs of the Procedure as unconstitutional and ultra vires — Held, the ‘In-House Procedure’ is legally sanctioned and fills a constitutional gap in disciplining judges for misconduct not amounting to impeachment — Procedure is not an extra-constitutional mechanism — Petitioner’s conduct in participating without demur and challenging post-adverse findings dis-entitled him to relief on grounds of tardiness and lack of bona fides, although Constitutional challenge itself is not waivable

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 943 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Tenth Schedule, Para 6(1) — Disqualification of Members — Speaker’s authority to decide — Judicial review of Speaker’s decision — Scope of — Decision of Speaker is amenable to judicial review on grounds of jurisdictional errors, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice, and perversity.

Aug 5, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 912 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC. ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih,…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Tenth Schedule, Para 6(1) — Disqualification of Members — Speaker’s authority to decide — Judicial review of Speaker’s decision — Scope of — Decision of Speaker is amenable to judicial review on grounds of jurisdictional errors, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice, and perversity. Delay in deciding disqualification petitions — Speaker’s duty to decide expeditiously — Held, Speaker is bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.

Aug 1, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 912 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC. ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih,…

Constitution

Kerala Cricket Association Byelaws, not specified — Blacklisting of member — KCA blacklisted the appellant life-ban for alleged concealment of facts before the High Court — Supreme Court struck down the blacklisting order as consequential to the erroneous rejection of the writ petition and writ appeal by the High Court, finding the High Court’s view of the appellant approaching with “unclean hands” to be harsh and not substantiated by the facts presented.

Jul 31, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 906 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTHOSH KARUNAKARAN Vs. OMBUDSMAN CUM ETHICS OFFICER, KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Writ jurisdiction — Violation of Fundamental Rights — A writ petition under Article 32 requires a prima facie case of violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right, with specific pleadings and prayers for relief. Vague allegations of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice without specific impact on Fundamental Rights are insufficient to maintain the petition.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 884 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHNU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw