State Laws Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

January 2, 2026 2:55 pm

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 — Section 16 — Creation of Revenue Villages — Naming Convention — Circular dated 20.08.2009, Clause 4 — Policy regarding naming — Clause 4 mandates that the name of a new Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste — Names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” derived from names of individuals (Amarram and Sagat Singh) — Naming is in contravention of the policy circular — Policy decisions, even if executive in nature, bind the Government, and any action taken in derogation thereof (without lawful amendment or justification) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — Notification dated 31.12.2020 creating ‘Amargarh’ and ‘Sagatsar’ is void to the extent it contravenes the binding policy. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1482 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIKA RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil…

State Laws

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) — Sections 109, 110 — Mutation of Land Records — Acquisition of Right — Mutation based on a Will — The MPLRC and the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, do not prohibit mutation based on a registered will; application for mutation based on a will must be considered on merits — Full Bench decision of the High Court confirmed that an application for mutation based on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold — Where no serious dispute is raised by the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder, mutation based on a will should not be denied. (Paras 15, 18, 19, 21)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1485 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARACHANDRA Vs. BHAWARLAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025…

State Laws

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 103 — Cooperative societies functioning immediately before reorganisation of States — Object and scope of ‘deemed conversion’ — Section 103 does not automatically convert a cooperative society registered under a State Act into a multi-State cooperative society merely due to State reorganisation (e.g., bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) — The conversion under Section 103 depends on whether the ‘objects’ of the society extend to more than one State, not merely on the statutory restructuring of the territory — Where the objects of a society remain confined to only one State after reorganisation, it continues to be governed by the applicable State Cooperative Societies Act. (Paras 9, 11, 15A, 15B, 15C, 12.18, 12.19, 14)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1427 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Vs. MILKIYAT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ( Before : Vikram Nath…

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUVEJ SINGH Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…of 2025 (Arising…

Constitution State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — Section 4 (unamended) — Person competent to lodge FIR — Essential Nature — Prohibition Act is a special legislation and its procedure must be followed, overriding general CrPC provisions for FIR registration by police — Prior to 2024 Amendment, Section 4 restricted FIR lodging to aggrieved persons or their relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption — This restriction is not a mere procedural nicety but a deliberate legislative choice to protect individual autonomy and prevent frivolous litigation in matters of personal religious faith — FIR lodged by complainant not falling within these categories is ab initio void and liable for quashing.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

State Laws

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 — Section 2(g)(6) — Validity — Land reserved for common purposes under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, vesting with Gram Panchayat — Held valid — Amendment did not suffer from constitutional infirmity — Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst proprietors.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1122 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan,…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1015 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1016 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 791 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA NEHRU MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and…

State Laws

Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 — Section 3 — Recognition of villages — State’s duty to consider objections fairly — Failure appears to have occurred in present case — Objections by appellant regarding ancestral land ownership not adequately considered by State authorities before recommending recognition — Court cannot definitively decide complex factual disputes regarding land ownership and customary practices — Appropriate for State authorities to resolve such issues.

Jun 1, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL Vs. KAKIHO VILLAGE AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. ….of 2025…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

Category: State Laws

You missed