Supreme Court of India Judgements

46970 Judgements hosted as on 09/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 13(2) and Rule 14, Appendix 3 — Disciplinary proceedings for major penalties — Initiation of by authority competent to impose minor penalties — Permissible — Rule 13(2) allows a disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties, even if not competent to impose major penalties itself. – Charge Sheet — Validity of issuance by General Manager (Telecommunications) for major penalties — Held valid as the General Manager is competent to impose minor penalties and Rule 13(2) permits initiation of proceedings for major penalties by such an authority.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 898 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. R. SHANKARAPPA ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters
Pension Railways Act Service

Pension Law — Family Pension — Eligibility of ‘Substitutes’ in Railways — deceased husband of the appellant was appointed as a ‘Substitute Waterman’ and died in harness after serving for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days — Railways denied family pension on the grounds that his service was not regularized and did not meet the 10-year qualifying period for family pension — Appellant contended that as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, Rule 1515 and Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, especially Rule 75(2)(a), substitutes with continuous service of one year are entitled to family pension. Held, deceased had acquired temporary status and completed more than one year of continuous service, thus eligible for family pension.

Jul 20, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 855 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

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
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 316(4), 344, 61 (2) — Bail — Appeal against grant of bail — Distinguished from cancellation of bail — An appeal against the grant of bail is not on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail — Superior Court interference in bail grant requires grounds such as perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law, or non-consideration of relevant factors including gravity of the offense and societal impact — The Court must not conduct a threadbare analysis of evidence at the bail stage, but the order must reflect application of mind and assessment of relevant factors — Conduct of the accused subsequent to the grant of bail is not a ground for appeal against grant of bail, but for cancellation. (Paras 7, 8)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 18602 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 460 — Appreciation of Evidence — Prior Enmity and Delayed Disclosure of Accused’s Name — Where the star eyewitness (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, provided a detailed account of the assault to the informant (PW-1) immediately after the incident, but failed to name the accused in the First Information Report (FIR), this omission is fatal to the prosecution case, especially when there existed a palpable prior enmity between the witness’s family and the accused (who was the brother of the deceased’s second wife). (Paras 28, 31, 40, 41, 45)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw
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