Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on16/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Service
Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
RTI
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.
C P C
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [
Accident
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [
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

2025 INSC 1396 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL MAHAJAN Vs. V. AVINASH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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

2025 INSC 1399 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVIND MANDAVI Vs. STATE OF CHATTISGARH ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 (Arising…

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.…

Municipal Laws

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Property Tax Revision — Akola Municipal Corporation — Challenge to legality of property tax revision (2017-18 to 2021-22) via Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Financial Autonomy of Municipal Bodies — Property tax is main source of income for Municipal Corporations to perform vital statutory obligations (urban planning, public health, infrastructure upkeep) — Financial stability and independence are integral to functional efficacy of municipal bodies — Revision of tax structure is necessary to match rising costs and sustain functions — Municipal bodies must have independent revenue sources to avoid dependency on State grants — Failure to revise tax structure for long periods (here, 2001-2017) constitutes gross laxity. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 27)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1398 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER Vs. ZISHAN HUSSAIN AZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Arbitration

rbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 32 and 38 — Interplay and Source of Power — Termination of Arbitral Proceedings (General) vs. Termination for Non-Payment of Fees — Section 32(1) stipulates termination of arbitral proceedings either by final award or by order under Section 32(2). Section 32(2) lists three specific scenarios: claimant withdrawal (unless legitimate respondent objection), party agreement, or continuation becoming “unnecessary or impossible” (the residual clause, Section 32(2)(c)). (Paras 94-96, 99, 107)

Dec 9, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARSHBIR SINGH PANNU AND ANOTHER Vs. JASWINDER SINGH ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — Discharge of Accused — Principles for deciding discharge application — Standard of proof for framing charge — The Court, at the stage of framing charge, must sift the evidence to determine if there is a “sufficient ground for proceeding”; a prima facie case must be established — If two views are possible and one gives rise to “suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion,” the trial Judge is empowered to discharge the accused — The Judge is not a “mere post office” but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a case for trial is made out — The strong suspicion required to frame a charge must be founded on material that can be translated into evidence at trial — Where the profile of allegations renders the existence of strong suspicion patently absurd or inherently improbable, the accused should be discharged. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1373 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL ( Before : Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 321 — Withdrawal from prosecution — Requirement of High Court permission for withdrawal of cases against sitting or former MPs/MLAs — Following Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India — High Court must exercise judicial mind and give a reasoned order when considering an application for permission to withdraw prosecution against sitting/former legislators — Application must disclose reasons for withdrawal and records of the case must be before the High Court — Absence of requisite permission from the High Court means that the withdrawal application cannot be granted and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground — High Court’s rejection of quashing petition confirmed. (Paras 2, 7, 9, 10)

Dec 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1378 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAL KUMAR PATEL @ RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings — Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 420 (Cheating), 344 (Wrongful confinement for ten or more days), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) — Scope of quashing power: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in exceptional situations; court must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage — Interference is warranted only when the case falls within recognized parameters (like those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet, corroborated by witness statements, prima facie disclose essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 344, and 506 IPC, quashing is unwarranted. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 30, 32, 34)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1384 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROCKY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…of…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law — Termination of Contractual Service — Qualifications — Interpretation of Educational Qualifications — Advertisement requiring “Postgraduate degree in Statistics” — Appellant holding M.Com. degree with Business Statistics and Indian Economic Statistics as principal subjects — Where no Government university offers a degree exclusively titled “Postgraduate degree in Statistics,” insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance — The interpretation must be contextual and purposive — Termination based solely on the title of the degree, ignoring expert opinion (Director, W.S.O., S.W.M., P.H.E.D.) that the appellant meets the requirement and the University certificate confirming inclusion of Statistics as principal subjects, is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 3, 4, 31, 32, 37, 44)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1385 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMIKANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. ) Civil…

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…

You missed

Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
RTI

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application.

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [

Jun 16, 2026 sclaw