Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

HELD specifically rejected the contention that writ under Article 32 was barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which was the subject matter of an earlier decision. – that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. No doubt that the right to information is also a fundamental right. In case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance – petitioners relegated to file writ under Art 32 to protect fundamental rights of its customers.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HDFC BANK LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Constitution

Death Penalty – It is also a fact that in all cases where imposition of capital punishment is a choice of sentence, aggravating circumstances would always be on record, and would be part of the prosecution’s evidence, leading to conviction, whereas the accused can scarcely be expected to place mitigating circumstances on the record, for the reason that the stage for doing so is after conviction. Accused is at disadvantage. Matter referred to larger bench for clarity

Sep 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: FRAMING GUIDELINES REGARDING POTENTIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE IMPOSING DEATH SENTENCES — Appellant Vs. ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Constitution

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 HELD 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof. The existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

Sep 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAR NARAINI DEVI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

Constitution

Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 – Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – HELD Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Sep 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HARBHAJAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Constitution G S T

HELD but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal – – judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions when there is an alternate remedy available,

Sep 22, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an executive instruction – the validity of such instructionscan always be scrutinized on the touchstone of law.

Sep 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJEEV COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,…

Constitution

HELD After a body has been buried, it is considered to be in the custody of the law; therefore, disinterment is not a matter of right. The law does not favour disinterment, based on the public policy that the sanctity of the grave should be maintained. Once buried, a body should not be disturbed.

Sep 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MOHAMMAD LATIEF MAGREY — Appellant Vs. THE UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B.…

Constitution

Benami ownership – Where the first plaintiff had proved that the properties had been purchased, with his funds, and the sons were minors, with no source of income – Plaintiff also proved that he had possession of the property, by adducing positive evidence of tenants, who paid rent to him – Elements necessary to establish benami ownership within the meaning of Section 4(3)(a) of the Act.

Sep 11, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUSHPALATA — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindrabhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw