Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: SC/ST

I P C SC/ST

CONVERSION –Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Appellant converted to Christianity and worked as a Pastor for ten years — High Court quashed proceedings, holding appellant disentitled to protection under SC/ST Act due to conversion — Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision — Conversion to a religion other than Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist results in automatic and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status — Religious conversion bars claim to benefits under SC/ST Act, as it is predicated on Scheduled Caste membership.

Mar 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHINTHADA ANAND Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(xi) — Conviction and Requirement of Caste-Based Intention — High Court’s finding that the offence was committed “simply for reason that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste” held perverse — No statement in court by the victim or PW-2 suggesting that the accused were motivated by the victim’s caste — Finding based on mere observation without evidence is unsustainable. (Para 20)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1395 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DADU @ ANKUSH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

SC/ST

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Section 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — Requirement of caste-based abuse occurring “in any place within public view” — Interpretation — For an offence under Section 3(1)(s) to be made out, the place where the utterance is made must be open, enabling the public to witness or hear the abuse — Abuse uttered within the four corners of a house, where public members are not present, does not satisfy the requirement of being “within public view” — Allegation that casteist abuses were hurled inside the complainant’s residence does not meet the statutory requirement — House of the complainant cannot be considered “within public view.” (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1397 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOHANVIR @ SOHANVIR DHAMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Cr P C SC/ST

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings under SC/ST Act, 1989, against respondents — Appellant contended High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction, overlooking evidence, and conducting roving inquiry — Court held High Court’s scope under Section 482 is limited to determining if allegations disclose a cognizable offence, and it should not engage in detailed evidence evaluation at pre-trial stage — However, if allegations are baseless, motivated by personal vendetta, or lack requisite ingredients for an offence, High Court can quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Jul 28, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 886 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KONDE NAGESHWAR RAO Vs. A. SRIRAMA CHANDRA MURTY AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, J.…

SC/ST

Offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act to be made out, the act of insult or intimidation must occur in a place “within public view,” and if the incident occurs in a private space without public witnesses, it does not satisfy the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the court can quash the proceedings if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the SC-ST Act.

Feb 4, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 132 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARUPPUDAYAR Vs. STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LALGUDI TRICHY AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Augustine…

SC/ST

Offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act to be made out, the act of insult or intimidation must occur in a place “within public view,” and if the incident occurs in a private space without public witnesses, it does not satisfy the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the court can quash the proceedings if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence under the SC-ST Act.

Feb 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 132 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARUPPUDAYAR Vs. STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LALGUDI TRICHY AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Augustine…

SC/ST

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 437 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw