Supreme Court of India Judgements

46950 Judgements hosted as on 04/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties – Impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER — Appellant Vs. COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Constitution

Government houses/flats are meant for serving Government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri Migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension – Classification made in favour of Government employees who were Kashmiri Migrants stands on the same footing as that of other Government employees or public figures – There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for indefinite long period.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…

Constitution

Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948 – Section 3(1), 6B(1) and 5A Held, While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies – Issues raised by the appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar)

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S MAGADH SUGAR AND ENERGY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…

Constitution

S L P – HELD There is a delay of approximately six years in preferring the special leave petition – No sufficient cause has been shown explaining the huge delay of six years – It is required to be noted that after the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the High Court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 28.12 Per Square Yard, in fact, the respondents accepted the judgment. Dismissed

Oct 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

Constitution

HELD 1) The construction of the toll plaza at 194 kilometre was not illegal or arbitrary; (2) The direction by the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be upheld and it is liable to be set aside; (3) The appellants will look at the barricades (closing of service roads) in regard to the toll plaza and permit such barricades only as are permitted in Rule 17 of the Rules. Any unauthorised barricades will be removed without any delay and at any rate within 2 weeks from today.

Oct 2, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MADHUKAR KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

Constitution

HELD Our answer with respect to the first prayer in Miscellaneous Application No. 1465 of 2021 will be sufficient to take care of the issue of special audit dealt with in the resolution dated 27.10.2020. The urgency spelt out in the report dated 31.08.2021, however, calls for immediate action. We, therefore, direct that the special audit, as referred to hereinabove, with respect to Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and SPSTT be completed as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this order.

Sep 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) TH. LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Constitution

Judicial Review – Tender jurisdiction – Purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence – To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  UFLEX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Constitution

Labour Court Award – Jurisdiction – Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court -Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it – No error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Constitution

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25, 25(a) and 25(f) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Principal Special Director in Enforcement Directorate – Extension of tenure – Section 25(f) of the CVC Act has to be read as the tenure of office of the Director of Enforcement is for a minimum period of two years – There is no proscription on the Government to appoint a Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years

Sep 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14, 21 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) — Substantive Equality and Inclusion — Scope and Spirit — The measure of a just society demands the removal of barriers for all citizens to realize their potential, transforming formal equality into substantive inclusion — Constitutional vision requires every person, regardless of physical or sensory limitation, to participate with dignity — Rights guaranteed to persons with disabilities are expressions of the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, not acts of benevolence. (Paras 1, 12, 13)

Dec 4, 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 4, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Examination of Accused — Object and Scope — Non-compliance with mandatory requirement — Fair Trial — The object of Section 313 CrPC is to ensure a fair trial by providing the accused with an opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them personally — It is a mandatory, non-negotiable obligation upon the Court and is not a mere formality; it is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice (audi alterum partem) — The statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction and is neither substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. (Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Section 14(1) — Mandamus to acquire land — Power of State Government to acquire land for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme — Preferential Right of Owner — The power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the area — Acquisition is not warranted when the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of their preferential right, and the process must be kept in abeyance until such right is extinguished — No mandamus can be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act where the subsequent purchaser from the original owner (Respondent No. 4) has a subsisting preferential right to develop the property. (Paras 63, 64, 71, 72, 77(1))

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw