Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 16/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.
Cr P C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision
Anticipatory Bail
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision
Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.
Constitution
Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.
Contempt

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S. 12–Criminal contempt-Posting of derogatory remarks against Judge of High Court on social media/ facebook-Appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month—Held; it was not a case where the contempt action should have been taken against the appellant who is an Advocate—Impugned order of High Court set aside.    

Jan 23, 2019 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3116 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1849 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy CriminaZ Appeal No.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw