Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Contempt

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 2(c), 12, 19 — Criminal Contempt — Power to Punish and Forgive — The power to punish for contempt carries the concomitant power to forgive when the contemnor demonstrates genuine remorse and repentance, making the extension of mercy an integral part of judicial conscience — Contempt jurisdiction is neither a personal armour for Judges nor a sword to silence criticism — Court must treat the acknowledgment of contrition as a virtue and extend forgiveness where the contemnor sincerely acknowledges the lapse and seeks to atone for it. (Para 1)

Dec 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1408 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINEETA SRINANDAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,…

Contempt

Contempt of Court — Initiating contempt proceedings — Clear and unequivocal terms of the underlying order — A Contempt Petition can be dismissed summarily only if the underlying order, the non-compliance of which is alleged, is genuinely unclear, ambiguous, or susceptible to two equally reasonable interpretations — Where the High Court dismissed a Contempt Petition holding that the underlying order was capable of two interpretations, but the Supreme Court found, upon reading the order as a whole, that there were clear and categorical directions and recorded statements regarding handing over of possession and payment of compensation, the dismissal of the Contempt Petition was erroneous. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1379 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASKAR GOVIND GAVATE (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

Constitution Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 2(c) — Criminal Contempt — Obstruction of administration of justice — Conscious non-disclosure of material facts before the Court that contaminates judicial sanctity and causes irreparable prejudice amounts to grave contempt and obstruction of justice, falling within criminal contempt.

May 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 784 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BINDU KAPUREA Vs. SUBHASHISH PANDA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Contempt Petition (Civil)…

Constitution Contempt

Freedom of Speech and Expression — Open Justice — Subjudice Principle — Contempt of Court – Such a direction, being a form of prior restraint, must satisfy twin tests of necessity and proportionality, applicable only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of trial or proper administration of justice — Courts must be open to public observations, debates, and constructive criticism, even on subjudice matters, as open justice instills faith and checks judicial caprice

May 14, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 656 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. Vs. ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. )…

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…

Bail Granted Contempt

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 588 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH — Appellant Vs. KAMAL DAYANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Contempt

“Subhasish Panda, DDA Vice Chairman appears before the court and accepts that not only the trees on the land vesting in the DDA were felled but even trees on the area of forest were felled. We direct the VC to file his personal affidavit on remedial measures which he proposes to take. Prima facie, this would amount to criminal contempt however, we’ll pass appropriate order in this regard on the next date.”

May 26, 2024 sclaw

ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.7 SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPT PETITION…

Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – ‘civil contempt’ – This case involves a dispute related to contempt of court arising from a stay order passed in an appeal – The Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the High Court had overstepped its contempt jurisdiction by vacating the stay order – The matter was remanded to the High Court to address the contempt issue appropriately

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw