Supreme Court of India Judgements

47250 Judgements hosted as on 21/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear. Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will. Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar. Administrative Law — Fairness and Consistency in Public Employment — Courts examine executive action for conformity with constitutional standards, especially when the State has long relied on certain workers — Courts scrutinize the manner of discretion, not just the outcome, to ensure actions are reasoned, non-arbitrary, and constitutional. Criminal Law — Murder and Conspiracy — Appreciation of Evidence — Supreme Court’s Role in Appeals Against Acquittal — The Supreme Court reiterated that its role in an appeal against an acquittal is to examine whether the High Court committed an error in disturbing the Trial Court’s findings, especially when two competent courts have reached opposite conclusions on the same evidence — The Court must re-appreciate the evidence to deliver a final finding.
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.

May 23, 2026 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.

May 23, 2026 sclaw
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.
I P C
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.
Will & Succession
Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.
Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar.
Service
Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar.
Administrative Law — Fairness and Consistency in Public Employment — Courts examine executive action for conformity with constitutional standards, especially when the State has long relied on certain workers — Courts scrutinize the manner of discretion, not just the outcome, to ensure actions are reasoned, non-arbitrary, and constitutional.
Constitution Service
Administrative Law — Fairness and Consistency in Public Employment — Courts examine executive action for conformity with constitutional standards, especially when the State has long relied on certain workers — Courts scrutinize the manner of discretion, not just the outcome, to ensure actions are reasoned, non-arbitrary, and constitutional.
Will & Succession

It is fairly well settled that in absence of pleading, any amount of evidence will not help the party – When the adoption ceremony, is mentioned in the registered adoption deed, which was questioned in the suit, there is absolutely no reason for not raising specific plea in the suit and to file application at belated stage to summon the record

Nov 9, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BIRAJI @ BRIJRAJI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SURYA PRATAP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah, JJ.…

Maintenance

IMP : (Cr.PC) – S 125 – Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under S 28A of the H M A, 1956; S 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and S 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable – Order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Ss 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.

Nov 4, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJNESH — Appellant Vs. NEHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra, and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 730…

Acquittal

(IPC) – S 302, 34 – Refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal to undergo a (TIP) – Ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges & the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and suffers from serious infirmities. Appeal allowed.

Nov 3, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJESH @ SARKARI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira…

State Laws

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Kerala Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 – Restrictions on activities within wetlands -It is open to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law –

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THOMAS LAWRENCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

Corporate

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is at a nascent stage and it is better that the interpretation of the provisions of the Code is taken up by this Court to avoid any confusion, and to authoritatively settle the law – Personal gurantor – Writ Petitions are transferred from the High Courts to SCOI

Nov 2, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. LALIT KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and High Court — Supreme Court’s power of interference under Article 136 of Constitution of India — Such power to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice, where there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice due to misreading or ignoring material evidence — Standard for conviction on circumstantial evidence — Circumstances must be fully established, consistent with hypothesis of guilt, of a conclusive nature, exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt, and form a complete chain leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence — Failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution case when facts are clear.

May 23, 2026 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Will — Validity and execution — Requirements — Attesting witnesses — Proof of execution — Suspicious circumstances — The court must consider if the Will was executed by the testator and if it was his last Will — It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy but requires satisfaction of a prudent mind — Section 63 of the Succession Act mandates signing or affixing a mark, attestation by two or more witnesses, with each witness seeing the testator’s signature or acknowledgment and signing in the testator’s presence — Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act requires calling at least one attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence to prove execution — If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder must remove them — The test of judicial conscience requires considering the testator’s awareness of the Will’s contents and consequences, his sound state of mind, and that he acted of his own free will.

May 23, 2026 sclaw
Service

Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 — Section 46(b) — Appointment of First Registrar — Appointment of the first Registrar was made by the Visitor [President of India] on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years — The power to appoint necessarily includes the power to dismiss or terminate the services of the appointee — Therefore, the Visitor, who was the appointing authority, was competent to take disciplinary action against the First Registrar.

May 23, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Service

Administrative Law — Fairness and Consistency in Public Employment — Courts examine executive action for conformity with constitutional standards, especially when the State has long relied on certain workers — Courts scrutinize the manner of discretion, not just the outcome, to ensure actions are reasoned, non-arbitrary, and constitutional.

May 23, 2026 sclaw