Supreme Court of India Judgements

46905 Judgements hosted as on 12/10/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

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…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 239AA(4) —Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Section 3(3)(b)(i) — The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s power to nominate persons with special knowledge in municipal administration to the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) — The court held that the power of nomination under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, as amended in 1993, is a statutory duty vested in the Lieutenant Governor and not the executive power of the Government of NCT Delhi — The court also clarified that the Lieutenant Governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising this power — The court added two principles to the relations between the Union and NCT Delhi, stating that the power of nomination was incorporated to reflect the constitutional changes in the NCT Delhi’s structure and that the Lieutenant Governor is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute, not guided by the Council of Ministers’ advice.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 578 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Constitution Contempt

Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 — Sections 3 and 4 — The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a writ petition against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for spreading misinformation about modern medicine — Whether Patanjali violated court orders by continuing to make misleading claims about their products’ medicinal efficacy —IMA argued that Patanjali continued to make false claims about their products despite court orders prohibiting such actions — Patanjali and its representatives claimed that any misleading statements were inadvertent and offered apologies — The court found Patanjali in contempt for violating its orders and issued further restrictions on their advertising practices — The court emphasized the importance of upholding the dignity of the judiciary and preventing misleading advertisements —The court referred to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and relevant case law to justify its decision —Patanjali was found in contempt, and further measures were imposed to ensure compliance with court orders.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 605 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF : INDIAN…

Constitution

Cess and Other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act 1992 — The case involves the Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA) and the Steel Authority of India (SAIL), focusing on the validity of state tax demands on mineral rights — Whether the judgment in MADA should be applied retrospectively or prospectively, impacting tax demands and commercial transactions — Petitioners argue for prospective application to avoid retrospective tax burdens on end consumers and commercial disruptions — Respondents argue that prospective overruling should not apply to tax legislation, emphasizing the public interest and financial stability of states — The court rejected the prospective application of the MADA judgment, allowing states to levy taxes but with conditions to mitigate financial burdens on assesses — The court emphasized the need to balance financial interests of states and assesses, avoiding retrospective tax demands before April 2005 — The court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling to ensure equitable outcomes and financial stability — The court provided a pragmatic solution to reconcile conflicting interests, allowing tax demands with staggered payments and waived interest for the period before July 2024.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 607 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 8 JUDGES BENCH MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent (…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 451 & 457 — Release of Seized Property — Trial Court rejecting release application for iron ore on grounds of applicant’s failure to substantiate ownership — High Court setting aside trial court’s order without examining correctness of its finding on ownership — High Court should have either agreed with trial court’s finding on ownership or recorded reasons for disagreeing — Failure to do so warrants interference and remand.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion as to relationship, when relevant — Opinion expressed by conduct of person with special knowledge on relationship is relevant — Essentials are court’s opinion, expression through conduct, and person having special knowledge — Conduct alone is not proof but an intermediate step to infer opinion — Opinion must be proved by direct evidence — Court needs to weigh evidence to form its own conclusion; Trial Court erred in treating opinion of witnesses as fact rather than evidence to be weighed and failed to independently assess credibility.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail in anticipation of arrest — Custodial interrogation not required — Appellant may be admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest upon arrest, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court — Appellant directed not to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts to authorities.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 366 — Death Sentence Reference — Sentencing Procedure — Conviction and death penalty were pronounced on the same day without a proper inquiry into aggravating and mitigating circumstances, psychological evaluation, or jail conduct report. This haste violated established sentencing principles and vitiated the death sentence.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw